Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the Punjab High Court's order dismissing in limine a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant, Durga Prashad, an exporter, had applied for an import licence under the Export Promotion Scheme for art silk yarn worth Rs. 8,03,530.45. The licence was initially granted in 1959 for only Rs. 3,27,841. His appeals to various authorities were rejected, and ultimately, after exhausting all remedies under the relevant order, a supplementary licence for Rs. 30,000 was issued in March 1962. Despite this, the appellant waited until April 1964 to approach the Minister of International Trade, who informed him that no further licence would be issued. On August 24, 1964, the appellant filed the writ petition seeking a mandamus for the full licence amount. The High Court dismissed it in limine. The Supreme Court, in appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a), upheld the dismissal on the ground of delay. The Court found no explanation for the two-year gap between March 1962 and April 1964. It reiterated that relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and one ground for refusal is laches. Even if fundamental rights are involved, the High Court's discretion must be exercised judiciously, and such delay can justify refusal. The Court also highlighted that in import matters, the exchange position and government policy vary yearly, making it inappropriate to direct issuance of a licence years after the alleged default. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition filed under Article 226 for mandamus to issue an import licence, after an unexplained delay of about two years from the last administrative decision. The appellant failed to explain the inaction between March 1962 (when supplementary licence was issued) and April 1964 (when he approached the Minister). Held that relief under Article 226 is discretionary and a petition filed with inordinate and unexplained delay can be refused on the ground of laches. The Court emphasized that aggrieved persons must approach the High Court with utmost expedition after exhausting remedies. (Paras 1-5) B) Administrative Law - Import Licence - Government Policy - Effect of Time on Mandamus - The Court noted that exchange position and international trade policy vary annually, and it would be odd to direct issuance of an import licence in 1968 for a default in 1959 or 1962. Therefore, in such matters, delay alone is sufficient to refuse relief. (Paras 4-5) C) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Delay in Article 226 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The appellant argued that the matter involved fundamental rights and delay should not bar relief. Held that even in cases of alleged breach of fundamental rights, the discretion of the High Court under Article 226 remains, and the matter must be left to the High Court's judicious exercise. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches, thereby disentitling the petitioner to discretionary relief.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court rightly dismissed the petition in limine due to unexplained delay of about two years. The Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to issue mandamus for an import licence. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Relief under Article 226 is discretionary
- delay without satisfactory explanation is ground for refusal
- even fundamental rights claims require promptness
- court will not direct import licence years after alleged default due to changing policies.
