TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inary 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. There being no stiff opposition or strong resistance to the alternate land offered by the Appellant herein not being as per the specifications indicated in the advertisement, there are no reason to substitute the court's view to that of the experts namely, the Corporation which has in its wisdom has exercised its discretion as is evident from the report filed in the form of affidavit by the territory manager (LPG)/ BPCL. The order of the Learned Division Bench is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON'BLE JUDGES PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND ARAVIND KUMAR JJ. For the Appellant : Pijush K. Roy, Sr. Adv., Pritthish Roy, Kakali Roy, Advs. and Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR For the Respondents : Zoheb Hossain, AOR, Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR and Nivedita Nair, Adv. JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the writ court was justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of godown and showroom; (b) the land offered by the Appellant was in contravention of Clause 7.1(vi) and (vii) of the guidelines for selection of regular LPG Distributors; (c) the amendment of the said guidelines brought about subsequently, cannot be made applicable retrospectively. The allotment made in favour of the (Appellant herein) was set aside by the impugned order and as a consequence of it, the letter of intent, the letter of approval accepting the alternate land offered by the (Appellant herein) and all subsequent permissions, licences and no objections issued in his favour were held to be of no effect. Hence, this appeal. 7. We have heard Shri Pijush K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would vehemently contend that Learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of locus standi of the writ Petitioner and had dissolved the interim order granted earlier. It is also contended that by the time the interim order of status quo came to be passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elines which has come into force subsequent to the advertisement in question or in other words Rules of the game could not have been changed after the commencement of the game which was exactly the exercise undertaken by the Learned Single Judge and rightly found to be improper by the Division Bench. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ Petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. 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 appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs Under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the Petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. 57. If the Petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [1964:INSC:7 : AIR 1964 SC 1006: (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [1992:INSC:137 : (1992) 3 SCC 136: (1992) 21 ATC 675: (1992) 2 SCR 969]). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [1968:INSC:310 : (1969) 1 SCC 110], Durga Prashad v. Chief Contro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy. 8. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation to Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards that Article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [1969:INSC:274 : (1970) 1 SCC 84: AIR 1970 SC 470] that no relief can be given to the Petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches this Court Under Article 32 after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, procrastination is the greatest thief of time and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 14. Having regard to the afore-stated principles of law enunciated herein above, when we turn our attention to facts on hand, it would not detain us for too long for accepting the plea of the Appellant in affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge and dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. We say so for reasons more than one, firstly, it requires to be noticed that the writ Petitioner was a rival applicant along with the Appellant herein for grant of LPG distributorship and she along with the Appellant herein, were found to be eligible and the Appellant herein was held to be successful by virtue of draw of lots. This factual aspect would reflect that the writ Petitioner was aware of all the developments including that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onducted and the same was found suitable for construction of LPG Godown. A letter being DGP:LPG OMP: Jamalpur dated 21.03.2017 was provided to the said LOI holder informing him that the alternate land provided is found suitable and therefore his request to construct LPG Godown in the said alternate land has been approved. A copy of the said letter dated 21.03.2017 is annexed hereto and is marked as R-5 . 25. It is therefore submitted that the steps taken by the Respondent No. 3 in allowing the LOI holder, Respondent No. 9, to provide alternate land for construction of godown, have been in consonance. with the change in policies and no favoritism or nepotism, as suggested by the Petitioner has been in play. 32. It is further clarified that the FVC conducted on the original land offered by the Respondent No. 9 was found to be satisfactory on all counts, and only on the basis of this, his request for provision of alternate land wall accepted. 15. Hence, we are of the considered view that the order of the Learned Division Bench is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The order of the Learned Single Judge stands restored for the reasons indicated herein above and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
