AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trict Court Gurgaon who has been misleading by giving the fake dates, the petitioner, suffering from financial hardships was unable to pursue his case personally on dates given by the counsel rather taking care of his case telephonically however visited to his counsel on dt. 08.08.24 to know the whereabouts of his case in absence of any proper information wherein after a hot discussion and quarrelling, anyhow the incomplete file was returned and on queries it is found that no case was filed before the Hon'ble High Court for which a complaint is lodged before the District Bar Association Gurgaon and thereby the petitioner who had become the victim of adverse circumstances only applied and obtained the complete set of his case from the Tribunal on 27.09.24 and hence the instant writ petition is delayed. That it is well settled law of the land that a petitioner should not suffer due to mistake on the part of his counsel in case of Rafiq & Anr. v Munshi Lai & Anr [(1981) 2 SCC 798] and Ajit Kumar Singh v Chiranji Lai [2002 AD (SC) 235] ." 2. On the aspect of delay and laches, and their effect on writ proceedings, the Supreme Court has, in its recent decision in Mrinmoy Mait....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. This Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal v State of W.B. [(2009) 1 SCC 768], has held to the following effect: "56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and lach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v Prosper Armstrong Hurd [(1874) 5 PC 221 : 22 WR 492], was approved by this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service [AIR 1969 SC 329]. Sir Barnes had stated: "Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis." (Emphasis supplied) 3. The explanation in para 4 of the writ petition can hardly explain six years of delay in approa....