Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.21 seconds)State Of Orissa vs Pyarimohan Samantaray And Ors. on 3 November, 1976
In State of Orissa v. Sri Pyarimohan Samantaray making of repeated representations was not regarded as satisfactory explanation of the delay. In that case the petition had been dismissed for delay alone.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
8. It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors. , that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
Moon Mills Ltd vs Industrial Court Bombay (M.R. Meher) & ... on 28 February, 1967
(1874) 5 P.C. 221 at page 239 was approved by this Court in The Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay and Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1450 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati and Ors. , Sir Barnes had stated:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
We may point out that in R. D. Shetty's case (supra), even though the State action was held to be unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner more than five months after the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondent and during that period, the fourth respondent had incurred considerable expenditure, aggregating to about Rs. 1.25 lakhs, in making arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the snack bar. Of course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a straitjacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay or creation of third party rights would by their very nature be few and far between.
Ashok Kumar Mishra & Anr vs Collector, Raipur & Ors on 4 September, 1979
23. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been emphasised time and again that where there is inordinate and unexplained delay and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the High Court would decline to interfere, even if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. We may only mention in the passing two decisions of this Court one in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and the other in Ashok Kumar v. Collector, Raipur .
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Jai Bhagwan, Ex Driver on 13 November, 2002
6.7 In case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. Jai Bhagwan reported in 2003-I LLJ 1029, the Delhi High Court has held in Para.4 and 5 as under: