- (1.) It transpires from the record that the petitioner was working as a conductor with the respondent-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, superannuated on attaining the age of retirement in 2004. The petitioner after ten years has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "(a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the departmental appeals pending before the authority. (b) issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." The pending appeals which the petitioner seeks to be decided by the respondents is of 26.8.1984, 1.2.1992 and 11.11.1997.
(2.) Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, states that the petition is highly belated and is being preferred after 30 years, further by mere filing of representation will not condone the latches on the part of the petitioner.
(3.) The issue of delay in filing a writ petition was considered by the Apex Court in Smt. Sudama Devi v. Commissioner and others, 1983 2 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under: "There is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is, in fact, doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be prescribed by law. In any event, one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down either under the rules made by the High Court or by practice. For every case, it would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances whether the petitioner is guilty of latches and that would have to be done without taking into account any specific period as period of limitation. There may be cases where even short delay may be fatal while there may be cases where even a long delay may not be evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner.";