Gross delay and laches defeat discretionary writ relief where an incentive-scrip claim was pursued belatedly and without diligence.

Gross delay and laches can defeat discretionary writ relief under Article 226 where the applicant failed to file a complete incentive-scrip application within time, received rejection on limitation grounds, and then remained inactive for a prolonged period before seeking relief. The unsatisfactory explanation for the delay and the belated approach to the Policy Relaxation Committee weighed against equitable intervention. On those facts, discretionary and equitable relief was declined, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to writ relief under Article 226 despite the belated filing of the application and the substantial delay in approaching the Court.

Analysis: The application for the incentive scrip was not filed as a complete application within the prescribed time. The petitioner was informed of rejection on the ground of time-bar, yet sought relief only after considerable delay before the Policy Relaxation Committee and thereafter approached the Court belatedly. The explanation offered for the delay was found unsatisfactory. In the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, such gross delay and lack of diligence weighed decisively against grant of equitable relief.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief under Article 226 and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the petitioner's delayed and negligent conduct disentitled it to discretionary and equitable intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: Gross delay and laches in asserting a claim under a discretionary writ jurisdiction can by themselves justify al of relief.

---