An unexplained three-year delay warrants refusal of discretionary relief under Article 226.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 18 November 2019 in Application Nos. 7547/2018 and 7548/2018, allowed the third respondent’s application and quashed the penalty withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect

The Registrar of the Karnataka Lokayukta filed this writ petition on 1 June 2023, more than three years after the Tribunal’s order, without pleading an explanation for the delay

The State subsequently implemented the Tribunal’s order by Government Order dated 13 May 2020, cancelling the penalty

1. Whether the writ petition should be rejected for unexplained delay and laches

2. Whether further relief was warranted when the State had already implemented the Tribunal’s order and cancelled the penalty

Article 226 of the Constitution confers discretionary writ jurisdiction, and although no fixed limitation period applies, a petitioner must approach the Court within a reasonable time.

Unexplained delay and laches may justify refusing relief, particularly where the delay may prejudice the opposing party or affect accrued rights.

The Court relied on Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551, which reiterates that delay may defeat a writ claim and that the discretion must be exercised on the circumstances of the case

It also relied on Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, on the Court’s discretion to refuse writ relief where negligence or omission, considered with the lapse of time and other circumstances, makes intervention inappropriate

The petition was filed over three years after the Tribunal’s order, and the petitioner offered no explanation for that delay.

Applying the principles governing discretionary relief under Article 226, the Court considered the delay unreasonable, particularly as the petitioner was an institution.

The Court also noted that the State had already given effect to the Tribunal’s order by cancelling the penalty, leaving no basis for further intervention.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of