Delay and laches can defeat writ relief where a stale service claim is pursued after long unexplained silence.

Delay and laches can bar writ relief under Article 226 where a claim is pursued after an inordinate lapse of time and the delay is not satisfactorily explained by repeated representations. Mere representations do not revive a stale claim, and unexplained delay may justify refusal of discretionary relief, especially where intervention could unsettle settled positions. The Court also noted that whether Clause 4 of the settlement applied to the workman was not suitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. On that basis, the writ petition was held barred by delay and laches, and no relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking appointment under a settlement could be entertained after inordinate delay and repeated representations, and whether relief could be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The claim was pursued nearly two decades after the alleged cause arose, and the later representations did not satisfactorily explain the delay. Mere submission of representations does not by itself justify a belated approach to the writ court. Delay and laches are material considerations in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and unexplained delay may justify refusal of relief, particularly where intervention may disturb settled positions. The Court also noted that the question whether Clause 4 of the settlement applied to the workman was not properly amenable to adjudication in a writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was barred by delay and laches, and no relief could be granted in writ jurisdiction; the decision was in favour of the appellants.

---