T. PRAMILA Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed on 20.04.2012 assailing the orders as at Annexures -A, B, C and D to the petitions. Order as at Annexure -D was passed on 25.07.2008. There is inordinate delay and laches in filing of these writ petitions. Though an explanation is sought to be offered for the delay and laches which can be found from para 20 of the writ petition, there is no material in proof of the same. It is to be pointed out that, though the petitioner states that some true copies of the treatment given to her mother is produced as 'Annexure -E series', no such record has been produced along with the writ petitions. In fact, there is no document as Annexure -E much less 'Annexure -E series' produced along with the writ petitions. When this was pointed out to the learned advocate, he conceded that the petitioner has not produced any record with regard to the treatment obtained by the petitioner's mother. In ., AIR 2008 SC 3000 , Apex Court has held as follows: 24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Thus the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of inordinate unexplained delay and laches.

(2.) AT this stage, Sri M.R.V. Achar, learned advocate for the petitioner, filed a memo for withdrawal of the writ petitions with liberty being reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court for relief after disposal of SLP (Civil) No. 17918/2012. I do not find any justification to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court for redressal of the grievance at a later date, since these writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of inordinate unexplained delay and laches. Sri S.V. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the 8th respondent has passed away and his legal representatives have not been brought on record. Be that as it may. In view of the memo filed by Sri M.R.V. Achar, writ petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that no liberty is reserved to the petitioner to re -agitate the matter since there is inordinate unexplained delay and laches in filing of these writ petitions. Ordered accordingly.