Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Shankara Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd vs M. Prabhakar & Ors on 5 May, 2011
"53. The relevant considerations, in
determining whether delay or laches should be
put against a person who approaches the writ
court under Article 226 of the Constitution is
now well settled. They are: (1) there is no
inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a
delay, the court must necessarily refuse to
entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice
based on sound and proper exercise of
-: 12 :-
discretion, and each case must be dealt with
on its owns facts. (2) The principle on which
the court refuses relief on the ground of laches
or delay is that the rights accrued to others by
the delay in filing the petition should not be
disturbed, unless there is a reasonable
explanation for the delay, because court should
not harm innocent parties if their rights had
emerged by the delay on the part of the
petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of
explaining delay in making an application
under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show
that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a
manner provided by law. If he runs after a
remedy not provided in the Statute or the
statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High
Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial
what the petitioner chooses to believe in
regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast
rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every
case shall have to be decided on its own facts.
(5) That representations would not be
adequate explanation to take care of the
delay."
B S Suersh Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2009
f) Infact in S.S.Balu and others v. State of
Karnataka [(2009) 2 SCC 479], it has been held that
delay defeats equity and that relief can be denied on the
ground of delay alone even though relief is granted to
other similarly situated persons who approach the courts in
time.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
a) In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported
in 2011 AIR SCW 1332 (State of Orissa & Anr. Vs.
-: 11 :-
Mamata Mohanty) the consideration of an application
where delay and laches could be attributed against a
person who approaches in a writ petition is discussed by
stating that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply
to writ jurisdiction, however, the Doctrine of Limitation
being based on public policy, the principles enshrined
therein are applicable and writ petitions could be dismissed
at the initial stage on the ground of delay and laches.
The Limitation Act, 1963
1