Delay and laches can defeat a stale writ challenge to dismissal, and overlooked delay may justify review.

Unexplained and inordinate delay in invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can justify refusal of discretionary relief, and stale service challenges are ordinarily not entertained on merits absent special circumstances. The writ petition here was filed several years after dismissal with no explanation for the intervening period, so it ought to have been rejected on delay and laches. Review was also warranted because the plea of delay and laches had been specifically raised but not considered in the writ proceedings or effectively addressed in intra-court appeal, amounting to an error apparent. The appeals succeeded and the High Court orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal from service, filed after an unexplained delay of several years, ought to have been entertained; (ii) whether the High Court erred in review by not considering the plea of delay and laches.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal from service, filed after an unexplained delay of several years, ought to have been entertained

Analysis: The writ petition was filed long after the dismissal order, with no explanation for the intervening period. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, delay and laches are material factors, and stale claims are ordinarily not to be revived unless special circumstances justify interference. The discretionary nature of relief under Article 226 requires the court to consider unexplained inaction and the prejudice occasioned by belated litigation.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained on merits and was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court erred in review by not considering the plea of delay and laches

Analysis: Review is maintainable where there is a patent or palpable error or where a material ground has been overlooked. The plea of delay and laches had been specifically raised, but it was not considered in the writ proceedings and was not effectively addressed in the intra-court appeal. That omission constituted an error apparent warranting review consideration.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in refusing to consider the review on the ground that no reviewable error existed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court orders were set aside, and the dismissal order was restored to the extent that the challenge before the High Court could not survive the unexplained delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Unexplained and inordinate delay in invoking writ jurisdiction can justify refusal of discretionary relief, and failure to consider a specifically raised plea of delay may constitute an error apparent warranting review.

---