2009 (1) TMI 904 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds dismissal of belated Writ Petition, emphasizing importance of timely legal actions.

Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and ors.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court's decision to dismiss the Writ Petition as belated. The Court emphasized the principle ... - Issues involved: Challenge to order passed by Bombay High Court dismissing Writ Petition as belated.Background: In 1971, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation acquired agricultural land, including 38 acres belonging to the appellant. Appellant's land had paddy cultivation and mango crops. In 1973, a resolution was passed for resumption of surplus unutilized land. In 1974, 20 acres were released after a Writ Petition. Appellant made representations for restoration of land in 1982 and 1984. Various actions and representations followed, including a Committee's recommendations in 1989. The land was allotted to another group in 1992, leading to appellant's representations in 2002 citing Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961.Appellant's Argument: Appellant's counsel argued continuous representations were made to authorities, waiting for actions based on Committee's recommendations before filing the Writ Petition.Respondent's Argument: Respondent's counsel supported the High Court's judgment, stating that the land was to be utilized for industrial development as per government policy, and appellant's representations did not justify the delay in filing the petition. Mentioned Section 39(2a) applies to undeveloped land, not the developed land in question.Legal Principle - Delay/Laches: High Courts consider delay/laches when exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Citing Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, discretion must be exercised judiciously. Referring to Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong Hurde, delay and nature of acts during the interval are crucial in equitable considerations.Precedents: R.N Bose v. Union of India highlighted that relief cannot be granted after inordinate delay under Article 32. State of M.P. v. Nandlal emphasized that High Courts do not assist tardy petitioners without satisfactory explanations for delays, considering the impact on third-party rights.Decision: The Supreme Court declined to interfere, dismissing the appeal based on the principle of delay/laches and the specific circumstances of the case.