1968 (11) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in limine. Thereupon the appellant applied for a certificate under Art. 133 (1)(a) of the Constitution. The High Court gave this certificate on the ground that the value of the subject-matter directly involved in the petition exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. In our opinion this appeal must fail on the ground that the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution was filed after great delay. The relevant facts are as under. The appellant was carrying on business of export and import, and exported goods of the value of Rs. 8,10,325/-, F.O.B. value Rs. 8,03,530.45, during the period August 25, 1958, to September 29, 1958. On November 12, 1958, the appellant applied for an import licence for art silk yarn of the f.o.b. value of Rs. 8,03,530.45 nP under the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was informed that no further licence would be issued to him. On August 24, 1964, the appellant filed the petition above-mentioned in the High Court. No explanation has been given in the petition for the delay in filing the petition and it has not been explained what the appellant was doing between March 5, 1962, when the supplementary licence was issued, and April 6, 1964. It is well-settled that the relief under Art. 226 is discretionary, and one ground for refusing relief under Art. 226 is that the petitioner has filed the petition after delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation. Gajendragadkar, C.J., speaking for the Constitution Bench, n Smt. Narayani Debi Khaitan v. The State of Bihar C.A. No. 140 of 1964; judgment dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor service, Amravati [1969] 1 S.C.R. 808 the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the delay should not debar him from seeking relief because he respondents have not suffered in any manner because of the delay. In this case Ramaswami, J., speaking for the Court, referred to an earlier decision in Moon Mills v. Industrial Court A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1450, 53, 54. Sup CI/69. "It is true that the issue of a writ of certiorari is largely a matter of sound discretion. It is also true 'that the writ will not be granted if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes ....