Unexplained inordinate delay and laches justify dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7 August 2023 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Lucknow.

The writ petition was filed nearly three years after the impugned order.

The petitioner offered no explanation for the delay or for not approaching the Court within a reasonable time.

Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 7 August 2023 was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, notwithstanding the absence of a prescribed limitation period for petitions under Article 226?

Whether the petitioner had provided any satisfactory explanation justifying the belated exercise of the High Court’s discretionary and extraordinary writ jurisdiction?

The Court held that although no statutory limitation period governs the filing of a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court must determine whether its jurisdiction has been invoked within a reasonable time.

Delay and laches constitute a valid ground for refusing relief in the Court’s discretionary writ jurisdiction, particularly where the delay is unexplained or may prejudice the opposite party or third parties.

Relying on Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 1 SCC 768, the Court reiterated that inordinate delay may justify refusal of relief even in cases involving fundamental rights.

It further relied on Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, which holds that negligence or omission in asserting rights, coupled with lapse of time and attendant circumstances, may warrant refusal to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction.

The principles in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, and related authorities were also applied to emphasise that writ courts do not ordinarily assist tardy, indolent, or acquiescent litigants.

The Court treated the challenge as directed against a stale order dated 7 August 2023 and found that the petitioner had approached the Court after an inordinate delay of nearly three years.

Since the petition contained neither an explanation for the delay nor any effort to justify the petitioner’s inaction, the Court concluded that the delay and laches were unexplained and substantial.

Applying the equitable and discretionary nature of Article 226 jurisdiction, the Court held that it was not appropriate to entertain a belated challenge at the petitioner’s leisure or pleasure, particularly in the absence of any adequate reason for the delay.

It held that the unexplained delay of nearly three years disentitled the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches, without examining the merits of the impugned order.