https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41073 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. en-us Tue, 29 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 May 2010 17:43:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41073 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41073