Supreme Court while deciding a civil appeal against judgment passed by Division Bench held that “delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action”. 

The case of the petitioner before the court was that the Division Bench accepted the plea of the writ petitioner without examining the aspect of delay and gave a complete go by for laches exhibited on the part of the writ petitioner as such the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and consequently, the Order of Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition has to be upheld. 

The court after considering the matter observed that though there is no fixed period of limitation for filing of a writ petition, however the extraordinary jurisdiction of a writ court has to be invoked within a reasonable time, and “even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death”.

The Court further observed, “If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court”.

The court as such allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Division Bench.