Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as averred in the writ petition, are that the Deputy Director, Information and Public Relations Department required the petitioner to appear for interview on 2.6.1987 for selection and appointment on the post of Peon. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Committee with all the required documents. According to the petitioner's Counsel, the petitioner was selected but on a wrong premise, the appointment letter was issued to another Chhotey Lal son of Darshan - opposite party, who never appeared before the Selection Committee and the petitioner came to know this fact only in the year 1997. The petitioner was engaged as daily wager and worked from 1.9.1987 till 10.5.1988 with artificial break. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has claimed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to issue appointment letter to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, Counsel for the petitioner was asked as to why he came late and filed the instant writ petition only in the year 2003 i.e. after 26 years. The simple answer of the petitioner's Counsel was that against the unjustified action, the petitioner continued to make representation to the higher authorities. It is now well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity" has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article of the Constitution. It is correct that no period of limitation is provided to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article of the Constitution but the same does not mean that the machinery of writ jurisdiction can be set in motion at any time at the whims and fancies of a party. It is also settled that there may be cases where even the delay of shorter period would be considered sufficient to decline relief under Article of the Constitution while in certain cases the Court may be persuaded to condone the long delay if sufficient reasons are disclosed by such party.
(3.) IN various legal pronouncements the Supreme Court has taken the limitation period which is prescribed for filing a civil suit as a guiding factor even for filing the writ petitions. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Anr. v. Shah Hyder Beig and Ors. : (2000) 2 SCC 48. The same is as under: The High Court has thus misplaced the factual details and misread the same. It is now a well -settled principle of law and we need not dilate on this score to the effect that while no period of limitation is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period the party is required for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but it is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law Courts under Article of the Constitution on a very sound equitable principle. Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, " delay defeats equity" has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a goby to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigation and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an order as has been passed in the matter as regards restoration of possession upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot arise.;