https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423945 Unexplained and inordinate delay defeated the invocation of Article 226 where the petitioner sought enforcement of a redemption order for seized gold after nearly four decades. The High Court applied the settled rule that delay and laches are material in discretionary writ jurisdiction, and stale claims are ordinarily not revived. It also noted that assertions of a pending appeal were unsupported by the record, and that prolonged inaction and lack of diligence could not justify extraordinary relief. The writ petition was therefore treated as not maintainable on account of gross delay and laches, and no interference was warranted. en-us Mon, 13 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jun 2022 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423945 Unexplained and inordinate delay defeated the invocation of Article 226 where the petitioner sought enforcement of a redemption order for seized gold after nearly four decades. The High Court applied the settled rule that delay and laches are material in discretionary writ jurisdiction, and stale claims are ordinarily not revived. It also noted that assertions of a pending appeal were unsupported by the record, and that prolonged inaction and lack of diligence could not justify extraordinary relief. The writ petition was therefore treated as not maintainable on account of gross delay and laches, and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 13 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423945