A writ petition filed after an unexplained five-year delay is not maintainable.

BIADA cancelled the petitioner’s allotment of industrial land/shed C-11, measuring approximately 2,200 sq. ft., and forfeited the deposited amount by order communicated on 5 February 2015.

The petitioner appealed to the Principal Secretary, Industries Department; the appeal was dismissed on 18 December 2018.

The petitioner stated that he received notice of the dismissal in December 2018 and, in August 2019, informed the authorities that he intended to challenge it by writ petition.

He filed the present writ petition in 2023, challenging both the cancellation and the appellate order, including on the ground that the appeal had been dismissed ex parte.

1. Whether the writ petition, filed in 2023 to challenge the appellate order of 18 December 2018, was liable to be rejected for unexplained delay.

2. Whether the petitioner provided a sufficient explanation for not approaching the Court earlier.

The Court applied the principle that relief under writ jurisdiction may be declined where a petitioner approaches the Court after substantial, unexplained delay.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory limitation period, statute, or precedent as the basis for its decision.

The petitioner’s own pleadings showed that he knew of the appellate order by December 2018 and had indicated in August 2019 that he intended to challenge it.

Nevertheless, he did not file the writ petition until 2023, approximately five years after the appellate order.

The Court found no adequate explanation for that delay and held that, in the circumstances, the petition was not maintainable.

It did not examine the merits of the cancellation or the claim that the appeal had been decided without a hearing.

It disposed of the writ petition and directed that any pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.