Writ jurisdiction and delay bar refused refund claim where earlier order was not executed and assessment was not challenged.

A second writ petition seeking refund of seized cash was held not maintainable because the petitioner had not executed the earlier writ order under Rule 647 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, had not challenged the later assessment order, and had not pursued remedies under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court treated the later departmental communications as part of the same continuing dispute and found no fresh cause of action. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary, and cannot be used to revive a stale monetary claim after prolonged inaction. The petition was therefore barred by delay and laches.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second writ petition seeking refund of seized cash was maintainable and whether the claim was barred by delay and laches.

Analysis: The petitioner had an earlier writ order directing issuance of notice and, failing compliance, refund of the seized amount with interest. The Court held that the petitioner did not pursue execution of that order under Rule 647 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, nor did he challenge the subsequent assessment order or avail the remedies under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The later departmental communications did not create any fresh cause of action because they had to be read with the earlier correspondence and assessment order, which showed continuity of the same dispute. The Court further held that writ jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary and cannot be used to bypass limitation or revive a stale monetary claim after long inaction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was barred by delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition cannot be entertained to enforce a stale monetary claim where the petitioner has neither executed the earlier writ order nor challenged the subsequent adverse assessment order and has allowed the matter to lie dormant for years; writ jurisdiction will not be used to defeat the effect of limitation or cure prolonged inaction.

---