Writ Proceedings. The Limitation Act does not strictly apply to the writ jurisdiction. Rejection of writ petition on the ground of delay is only a rule of discretion by exercise of self-restraint and not a mandatory requirement. Supreme Court 6:11:2020.

VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3647 OF 2020 decided on 6 November 2020.

Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/5173/5173_2020_35_1501_24640_Judgement_06-Nov-2020.pdf

14. That brings us to the question of delay. There is no doubt
    that the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction may decline
    to exercise the discretionary writ jurisdiction on ground of delay
    in approaching the court. But it is only a rule of discretion by
    exercise of self­restraint evolved by the court in exercise of the
    discretionary equitable jurisdiction and not a mandatory

requirement that every delayed petition must be dismissed on the
ground of delay. The Limitation Act stricto sensu does not apply
to the writ jurisdiction. The discretion vested in the court under
Article 226 of the Constitution therefore has to be a judicious
exercise of the discretion after considering all pros and cons of
the matter, including the nature of the dispute, the explanation
for the delay, whether any third­ party rights have intervened etc.
The jurisdiction under Article 226 being equitable in nature,
questions of proportionality in considering whether the impugned
order merits interference or not in exercise of the discretionary
jurisdiction will also arise. This Court in Basanti Prasad vs.
Bihar School Examination Board and others, (2009) 6 SCC
791, after referring to Moon Mills Ltd. vs. Industrial Court, AIR
1967 SC 1450, Maharashtra SRTC vs. Balwant Regular
Motor Service, AIR 1969 SC 329 and State of M.P. and Others
vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others, (1986) 4 SCC 566, held that if
the delay is properly explained and no third party rights are
being affected, the writ court under Article 226 of the
Constitution may condone the delay, holding as follows:

“18. In the normal course, we would not have taken
exception to the order passed by the High Court.
They are justified in saying that a delinquent
employee should not be permitted to revive the stale
claim and the High Court in exercise of its discretion
would not ordinarily assist the tardy and indolent
person. This is the traditional view and is well
supported by a plethora of decisions of this Court.
This Court also has taken the view that there is no
inviolable rule, that, whenever there is delay the
Court must refuse to entertain a petition. This Court
has stated that the writ court in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution may condone the delay in filing the
petition, if the delay is satisfactorily explained.”

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.