Writ relief may be refused for unexplained delay and lack of diligence in invoking Article 226 jurisdiction.

Relief under Article 226 was refused because the petitioners approached the High Court after an unexplained delay and failed to prosecute the proceeding with reasonable promptitude. The Court treated writ jurisdiction as discretionary and held that laches and lack of diligence were sufficient to defeat relief. As the preliminary objection on delay succeeded, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the merits of the impugned revisional order or the excise claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay in invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitioners approached the Court long after the revisional order and took no effective steps for several years after lodging the petition. The remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and is available only to a litigant who acts with reasonable promptitude. In the circumstances, the petitioners were found not to have prosecuted the proceeding diligently, and the delay was held sufficient to defeat grant of relief. The Court therefore found it unnecessary to examine the merits of the impugned order.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on laches was upheld, and relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was refused.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected solely on the ground of delay and lack of diligence, without adjudication on the merits of the excise claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief under Article 226 may be declined where the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay and has not prosecuted the proceeding with reasonable promptitude.

---