Court emphasizes timely filing in challenging tribunal orders; dismisses petitions citing lack of valid justifications.

The High Court dismissed the petitions challenging orders of the Textile Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal due to significant delay in filing without valid justification, emphasizing the importance of timely seeking extraordinary remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court cited precedents to highlight the necessity of prompt approach for relief, noting that undue delay can lead to denial of relief. As the petitioners failed to provide valid justifications for the delay, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders passed by the Textile Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal
2. Delay in filing the petitions and its impact on the Court's decision

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the orders dated 28th March, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Textile Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its decision, relied on its earlier judgment from 30th April, 2004, providing detailed reasoning for upholding the petitioners' liabilities to pay the cess demanded by the Textile Committee. The petitions were filed in the High Court against the impugned orders when they were put into execution by the respondents. However, the Court noted a significant delay in filing the petitions without any valid justification or explanation provided by the petitioners for the delay.

2. The Court emphasized the importance of timeliness in seeking extraordinary remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution. Citing precedents such as Kamini Kumar Das Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and J.N. Maltiar v. State of Bihar, the Court highlighted that petitioners must approach the Court promptly when seeking relief. Various cases, including Roshanlal v. International Airport Authority, Hari Singh v. State of U.P., Abhinavodhanarda Villya Sankara Vihari v. P.R. Reddy, and Chandra Bhusan v. Dy. Director Consolidation, were referenced to underscore the principle that undue delay or laches on the part of the party seeking relief can lead the Court to exercise discretion in denying the relief sought. Ultimately, due to the gross delay in filing the petitions and the lack of valid justifications for the delay, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions.

---