Delay alone cannot defeat a writ petition when the explanation is sufficient; restoration for merits may follow with costs.

A writ petition should not be declined solely on delay where the explanation for delay is accepted as sufficient and the matter has already been entertained earlier. In such circumstances, delay does not justify denying adjudication on merits. The rejection of the writ petition on limitation grounds was set aside, and the matter was restored to the High Court for decision on merits, subject to payment of costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be rejected solely on the ground of delay without being decided on merits, and whether the matter should be restored for adjudication subject to costs.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was accepted as sufficient. The writ petition had initially been entertained and was later rejected only on delay. In these circumstances, delay was not treated as a sufficient ground to deny a merits decision. Restoration was directed with a costs condition.

Conclusion: The rejection of the writ petition on the ground of delay was set aside and the matter was restored to the High Court for disposal on merits, subject to payment of costs.

---