WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 CANNOT BE EXERCISED TO ENTERTAIN STALE CLAIMS BARRED BY DELAY AND LACHES.

In 1991, the Town Improvement Trust, Damoh, issued an advertisement for the allotment of plots under the Rashtriya Awas Bank Yojana.

The petitioner was selected and deposited ₹9,640 for the execution of an agreement for Plot No. 23. Despite completing all formalities and being assured possession within 15 days, the authorities failed to deliver the plot for over 27 years.

The District Consumer Forum passed an order in favor of the petitioner on January 29, 2002 (Annexure P/5), yet no action followed.

The petitioner filed multiple representations but remained inactive until filing this writ petition on August 28, 2025.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct delivery of possession and decide representations after a significant lapse of time.

2. Whether the petition is maintainable despite the doctrine of delay and laches.

The Court applied the equitable doctrine of "delay and laches," establishing that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised in favor of "sleeping litigants" or for "stale claims".

Reliance on Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan (2006), which emphasizes that negligence or omission to assert rights can prejudice the opposite party.

The doctrine derived from S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala (2009) to affirm that "delay defeats equity".

The principle from State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011), holding that a litigant cannot "wake up from deep slumber" based on relief granted in similar cases.

The Court observed that the allotment proceedings originated in 1991 and were completed by 1998, yet the petitioner failed to take execution steps following a 2002 Consumer Forum order or challenge the subsequent inaction for over two decades.

The Court found the petitioner’s claim in paragraph 4—that there was "no delay"—to be unsubstantiated, noting that the submitted representations lacked dates and acknowledgments.

The Court reasoned that the High Court’s extraordinary powers are discretionary and cannot be extended to a party who has slept over their rights for 27 years without a plausible explanation.

The High Court dismissed the petition solely on the grounds of delay and laches, refusing to grant the requested mandamus or relief regarding the representations, with no order as to costs.