Background:
In the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley & Ors., the Supreme Court examined the significance of delay and laches in petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant, a successful LPG distributor, contested a High Court decision that allowed an intra-court appeal by an unsuccessful bidder/respondent after a notable delay of four years.
Key Points:
- Delay and Laches:The Supreme Court stressed that the High Court should not grant extraordinary relief to a petitioner who approaches the court belatedly, emphasizing the principle that delay defeats equity.
- Reversal of High Court’s Finding:Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar reversed the High Court’s decision, highlighting the significance of considering delay and laches in exercising discretionary powers under Article 226.
- Appellant’s Argument: The appellant argued that the Division Bench of the High Court was negligent in addressing the delay and laches exhibited by the respondent while preferring the intra-court appeal.
- Respondent’s Defense:The respondent supported the High Court’s decision, citing violations of guidelines and arguing against rectifying inherent defects based on post-advertisement amendments.
- Supreme Court’s Observation: The Court acknowledged the delay and laches on the part of the respondent, who challenged the distributorship allotment three years after it was made, only upon the appellant’s acceptance of alternate land in 2017.
- Indolent Litigant:The Court reasoned that the writ court’s extraordinary jurisdiction must be invoked within a reasonable time, emphasizing that even the submission of memorials cannot revive a cause of action that has naturally expired due to delay and laches.
- Legal Provisions: The judgment underscores the discretionary powers of the High Court under Article 226 and the necessity of considering delay and laches when exercising such powers. It also highlights that while fundamental rights cannot be waived, delay and laches are crucial factors in determining whether to grant extraordinary relief.
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the principle that delay defeats equity and that petitioners must approach the court in a timely manner to assert their rights. The Court’s emphasis on the importance of considering delay and laches aligns with the broader legal doctrine that parties should not benefit from their own inaction or negligence. Additionally, the judgment clarifies that even if a petitioner submits memorials or attempts to revive a cause of action, delay and laches may still warrant dismissal of the petition.
Conclusion:
In light of the principles outlined in the judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Learned Single Judge’s order and rejecting the respondent’s writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches. The Court’s decision underscores the significance of timely action in seeking judicial remedies and highlights the consequences of undue delay in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Source:
Read also–SC’S RULING ON VOTER AWARENESS RALLIES DURING PROHIBITORY ORDERS
