Inordinate delay and laches can defeat writ relief against rejection of a customs drawback claim.

In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, inordinate and unexplained delay can justify refusal of discretionary relief against rejection of a customs drawback claim. Mere interim representations do not amount to a satisfactory explanation for a stale challenge, especially where the claim was rejected repeatedly as time-barred and non-compliant. The note emphasises that belated claims are ordinarily not revived after a long lapse of time, and that laches remains a valid ground to decline interference with such claims.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of the customs drawback claim was liable to be entertained despite inordinate delay and laches.

Analysis: The petitioner approached the Court nearly five years after the first rejection of the claim and after repeated communications rejecting the claim as time-barred and non-compliant. The only explanation offered was that representations had been made in the interim. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relief is discretionary, and belated claims are not ordinarily entertained unless the petitioner shows a tangible and satisfactory explanation for the delay. Mere representations do not constitute a sufficient explanation, and stale claims are not to be revived after a long lapse of time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of gross delay and laches and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inordinate and unexplained delay, not cured by mere representations, is a valid ground to refuse discretionary relief and decline interference with a stale claim.

---