LexMRINMOY MAITY versus CHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 506 : 2024 INSC 314 Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and Others (Civil Appeal No. 5027 of 2024) 18 April 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Writ court, if justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the approval granted in favour of the appellant for starting LPG distributorship. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art 226 – Exercise of discretionary powers under – Delay or laches, effect – On facts, four years after the allotment of LPG distributorship in favour of the appellant, and on acceptance of the alternate land offered by the appellant and permitting him to construct the godown and the showroom, the unsuccessful bidder challenged the decision of the Corporation – High Court dismissed the writ petition, however, in appeal the allotment made in favour of the appellant was set aside – Correctness: Held: Delay defeats equity – Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers u/Art. 226 – Applicant who approaches the court belatedly ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts – In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action – Discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution, depending upon the facts of the case – Though, for filing of a writ petition, no fixed period of limitation is prescribed, however, it has to be filed within a reasonable time – If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, 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 [2024] 4 S.C.R. 507 Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and Others wrong – On facts, writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself – Writ petitioner was aware of all the developments including that of the allotment of distributorship having been made in favour of the appellant way back in 2014, yet did not challenge and only on acceptance of the alternate land offered by the appellant in 2017 and permitting him to construct the godown and the showroom, the same was challenged and thereby the writ petitioner had allowed his right if at all if any to be drifted away or acquiesced in the acts of the Corporation – Also, the appropriate government felt the need of permitting the Oil Marketing Companies to be more flexible and as such modification to the guidelines had been brought about whereby the applicants were permitted to offer alternate land where the land initially offered by them was found deficient or not suitable or change of the land, subject to specifications laid down in the advertisement being met – Thus, the order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside, and that of the Single Judge is restored. [Para 15] Case Law Cited Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v. State of W.B and others. [2008] 15 SCR 194 : (2009) 1 SCC 768; Karnataka Power Corportion Ltd. and another v. K. Thangappan and another [2006] 3 SCR 783 : (2006) 4 SCC 322; Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu [2014] 1 SCR 987 : (2014) 4 SCC 108 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords LPG distributorship; Exercise of discretionary powers; Delay or laches; Extraordinary relief; Cause of action; Period of limitation; Acquiescence. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5027 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2018 of the High Court at Calcutta in CAN No. 809 of 2018 508 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Pijush K. Roy, Sr. Adv., Pritthish Roy, Ms. Kakali Roy, Asit Roy, Rajan K. Chourasia, Advs. for the Appellant. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Zoheb Hossain, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Sandeep Narain, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the writ court was justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.