Delay Defeats Equity; Laches Justifies Dismissal of Writ Petition: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of LPG Distributorship Writ on Grounds of Delay and Lack of Locus Standi
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has restored the order of the Single Judge dismissing a writ petition challenging the grant of an LPG distributorship due to the delayed response and lack of locus standi of the petitioner. The bench, consisting of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, addressed the issues surrounding the eligibility and selection process for the distributorship in Jamalpur, District Burdwan.
Legal Points Addressed: The primary legal question was whether the writ court was justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the approval granted to the appellant for starting an LPG distributorship based on an alternate land offering after the originally proposed land was found encumbered.
Facts and Issues:
The case arose from a 2012 advertisement calling for LPG distributorship applications under the General Purpose (GP) category. Both the appellant and respondent No.1 were initially deemed eligible. However, after a draw, the appellant was selected. Several years later, respondent No.1 challenged the approval on the basis that the land offered by the appellant did not comply with the specific land guidelines. The challenge was initially dismissed due to delay and lack of locus standi, but was later entertained by an appellate court which set aside the approval for the distributorship.
Court’s Assessment:
On Delay and Latches: The Court highlighted the principle that “delay defeats equity” and emphasized that inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation should lead to the dismissal of writ petitions. The Supreme Court observed, “An applicant who approaches the court belatedly… ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts.”
On Judicial Discretion in Writ Proceedings: The Court noted that the High Court should exercise its discretionary powers judiciously, not allowing indolent litigants to revive lapsed causes of action.
On Guidelines and Subsequent Amendments: The Court found that the subsequent amendment allowing the offering of alternate land in response to the original advertisement was reasonable and within the scope of administrative flexibility.
On the Role of Appellate Courts in Writ Appeals: The Supreme Court criticized the appellate court’s decision for not adequately considering the aspect of delay and for failing to recognize the lack of locus standi of the respondent.
Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s decision that had favored the respondent, restored the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition, and upheld the approval of the appellant’s LPG distributorship on the alternate land offered. The decision was based on the doctrines of delay, latches, and the proper exercise of judicial discretion.
Date of Decision: April 18, 2024
Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and Others
