Clean hands and laches barred writ relief where material facts were suppressed and the challenge came after extraordinary delay.

A litigant seeking discretionary relief must disclose all material facts and approach the court with clean hands; here, the explanation for a 401-day delay in filing the special leave petition was rejected because the record showed prior knowledge of the High Court's order and the contrary plea was treated as misleading. On merits, a writ of mandamus for delivery of possession of acquired land was refused because the appellant's own correspondence was inconsistent with its later challenge, and nearly three decades had passed with an intervening slum rehabilitation scheme and completed third-party construction. The doctrine of laches and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction barred relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was entitled to condonation of 401 days' delay in filing the special leave petition; (ii) whether, on merits, the appellant could seek a writ of mandamus for delivery of possession of the acquired land notwithstanding the long lapse of time and the developments that had taken place in the meantime.

Issue (i): whether the appellant was entitled to condonation of 401 days' delay in filing the special leave petition.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was held to be unsatisfactory because the record showed that the appellant's officers and counsel were aware of the High Court's order much earlier than asserted. The Court found that material correspondence and the conduct of the appellant demonstrated knowledge of the order, while the contrary plea in the delay application was treated as a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. The Court applied the principle that a litigant seeking discretionary relief must disclose all material facts and come with clean hands.

Conclusion: The prayer for condonation of delay was rejected against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether, on merits, the appellant could seek a writ of mandamus for delivery of possession of the acquired land notwithstanding the long lapse of time and the developments that had taken place in the meantime.

Analysis: The Court held that the appellant had itself acted on the basis that only 1706 sq. metres of built-up area would be handed over free of cost, and its later challenge to the order was inconsistent with its own correspondence. Independently, the Court found that the extraordinary delay of nearly three decades, the intervening slum rehabilitation scheme, and the completed construction in favour of third parties made the request for mandamus unsustainable. The discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the doctrine of laches barred relief.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the requested mandamus and the challenge failed on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant was disentitled to discretionary relief both for suppression of material facts and for extraordinary delay, and the impugned order did not warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant invoking discretionary writ or appellate relief must candidly disclose all material facts, and a court may refuse relief where there is suppression, misleading pleadings, or inordinate unexplained delay attracting the doctrine of laches.

---