9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 against the respondents, seeking relief for the issuance of an import license. The High Court dismissed the petition citing delay as a crucial factor. The appellant applied for a certificate under Art. 133(1)(a) due to the value of the subject matter exceeding a certain threshold. The appellant's business involved export and import activities, with specific instances of applying for an import license under the Export Promotion Scheme. Despite exhausting available remedies, the appellant delayed filing the petition without providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The discretionary nature of relief under Art. 226 was emphasized, with the court highlighting the importance of timely petitions. The judgment cited previous cases where delay led to the refusal of relief, underscoring the need for judicious exercise of discretion by the court. The appellant's argument that the delay did not prejudice the respondents was countered by the principle that negligence or delay causing prejudice could impact the grant of relief. The judgment also referenced a case where delay was not found to be a bar to seeking relief, emphasizing the importance of examining each situation individually. The court acknowledged the appellant's claim for relief based on fundamental rights but reiterated the need for timely recourse to legal remedies. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs, highlighting the significance of timely legal action and the discretion of the court in granting relief under Art. 226. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the critical role of timely filing in seeking relief under Art. 226, emphasizing the discretionary nature of such relief and the need for parties to approach the court promptly after exhausting available remedies.
|
