Laches in writ jurisdiction can bar relief despite no third-party rights, where delay is unexplained and the challenge is stale.

In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, inordinate unexplained delay and laches can independently justify refusal of discretionary relief, even where no third-party rights have intervened. The Court noted that the rejection of the post-confirmation petition had been duly communicated, the petitioner remained silent for many years, and the surrounding facts supported the Union's version; on that basis, the challenge to the military punishment was barred by laches. The contention that the impugned order was without jurisdiction was also not established, and the High Court's refusal to interfere was upheld, with the special leave petition rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the special leave petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay in approaching the writ court.

Analysis: The challenge arose from long delay in questioning the military punishment and the rejection of the post-confirmation petition. The Court found that the rejection order had been duly communicated, that the petitioner had remained silent for many years, and that the surrounding facts supported the Union's version. It held that absence of third-party rights is not decisive; laches remains a relevant and independent consideration in the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The contention that the impugned order was without jurisdiction was also not established.

Conclusion: The petition suffered from laches and the High Court was justified in refusing interference. The special leave petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, inordinate unexplained delay and laches can independently justify refusal of discretionary relief, even if no third-party rights have intervened.

---