Delay and laches can defeat writ relief where prolonged inaction is unexplained and diligence is not shown.

Writ relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and inordinate delay and laches remain material grounds for declining that relief. A petition filed after nearly six years was held not to merit intervention because the explanation did not cover the full period of inaction. The Court also rejected reliance on alleged counsel negligence, noting that a litigant must show continuous diligence and a credible account for the entire delay. The writ petition was dismissed for unexplained delay and laches.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for inordinate and unexplained delay and laches in invoking writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition was instituted after nearly six years, and the explanation offered for the delay was found insufficient to account for the entire period. The Court reiterated that writ relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and that delay and laches are material considerations in exercising that discretion. It further disapproved attempts to justify prolonged inaction merely by attributing negligence to counsel, absent convincing material showing continuous diligence by the litigant and a credible explanation for the full delay.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entitled to relief and was dismissed for unexplained delay and laches.

---