Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to entertain stale claims barred by laches.

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

The petitioner’s father was selected, deposited the registration fee and agreement charges, and was allotted Plot No. 16 with a promise of possession within 15 days.

Despite fulfilling all formalities by 1998, possession was never delivered.

The petitioner’s father passed away on May 27, 2025, without challenging the inaction during his lifetime.

The petitioner filed this writ petition on August 26, 2025, seeking a mandamus for delivery of possession and a decision on pending representations.

1. Whether a writ petition seeking enforcement of rights after a delay of over 27 years can be entertained under the discretionary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the filing of representations or the death of the original allottee provides a sufficient explanation to overcome the doctrine of laches.

The court applied the equitable doctrine of "delay and laches," establishing that discretionary relief under Article 226 cannot be granted to a "sleeping litigant" who fails to assert rights within a reasonable time.

High Courts may refuse extraordinary powers if negligence or lapse of time causes prejudice to the opposite party as held in Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan (2006).

"Delay defeats equity" and subsequent judgments in similar cases or mere representations do not furnish a valid explanation for stale claims as per State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala (2009).

The court found that while the allotment proceedings were initiated in 1991 and completed by the petitioner's father in 1998, no legal action was taken for nearly three decades.

The court noted that the petitioner's father was well aware of the proceedings during his lifetime but chose not to challenge them.

Applying the principles from A.P. SRTC v. N. Satyanarayana, the court observed that the petition lacked any plausible explanation for the delay.

It further scrutinized the submitted representations (Annexure P/6) and found them deficient as they lacked dates and acknowledgments.

Consistent with the ruling in NDMC v. Pan Singh, the court reasoned that exercising discretionary jurisdiction in favor of those who approach the court after a long lapse of time would be unjust and inequitable.

The High Court dismissed the petition solely on the grounds of delay and laches. No order as to costs was made.