9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (4) TMI 480 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Delay in filing writ petition, laches, discretionary power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated March 27, 2001. The court noted a significant delay in filing the petition, which was filed on April 10, 2006, after a delay of about 1627 days. The court emphasized that the power of the High Court under article 226 is discretionary and must be judiciously exercised. It was highlighted that relief under article 226 cannot be granted if there is undue delay on the petitioner's part. The court cited various decisions, including Tilokchand Motichand v. H. B. Munshi and Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, to underscore the importance of approaching the court promptly for relief. The court discussed the principle that delay and laches can be grounds for refusing relief under article 226. It was emphasized that petitioners must approach the court at the earliest opportunity, and inordinate delay can lead to the refusal of relief. The court quoted Sir Barnes Peacock to explain the doctrine of laches in equity, highlighting the importance of time and conduct in seeking remedies. The court further stated that the objective is to prevent the agitation of stale claims and protect the rights of third parties. Additionally, the court referred to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, where the Supreme Court observed that delays beyond the period of limitation are generally considered unreasonable. In this case, the court found that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay of 1,163 days in filing the writ petition. The court noted that the delay had not been justified, and even civil suits have a time limit of three years under the Limitation Act. The court concluded that the delay was unjustified and dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of laches, emphasizing that the rights accrued to the respondent should not be disturbed without a reasonable explanation for the delay.
|
