Summary
A rival LPG-distributorship applicant who knew of the selection and approval but waited years could not revive her challenge when alternate land was accepted. Unexplained delay and acquiescence warranted refusal of discretionary writ relief. The Court also declined to substitute its view for the Corporation’s supported assessment of alternate land under the more flexible policy. The Division Bench’s cancellation was set aside and dismissal of the writ petition restored.
Issues
- Whether unexplained delay and acquiescence barred discretionary relief against the distributorship approval.
- Whether the Corporation’s acceptance of alternate land warranted judicial substitution on this record.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaAlthough no fixed writ limitation period applies, delay, explanation, prejudice and intervening developments govern equitable discretion; the stale challenge here should have been rejected. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Held
- Writ relief must be sought within a reasonable time. Delay is assessed contextually, including explanation and consequences for others, rather than by a fixed mathematical limitation. Later representations do not by themselves revive a stale cause; even invocation of fundamental rights does not eliminate this discretionary assessment. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- The rival applicant knew of the successful draw and 2014 approval but did not challenge them until the alternate-land decision in 2017. That delay and acquiescence furnished sufficient ground to dismiss the writ petition. The Supreme Court restored dismissal on its own stated reasons, rather than adopting a blanket bar merely because she had participated in selection. (¶¶ 6, 9, 14, 15)
- The subsequent policy permitted flexibility to offer suitable alternate land subject to advertised specifications. The Corporation’s verification and affidavit supported acceptance, and no substantial specification-based objection justified replacing that expert administrative assessment with the court’s view on these facts. (¶ 14)
- The Division Bench’s order cancelling the allotment and consequential permissions was set aside. The Single Judge’s dismissal was restored, the appeal allowed, and no costs awarded. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench cancellation set aside and Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition restored on the stated grounds. No costs.