Jura subvenient’- unreasonable delay laches - Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent - ‘Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient’ - unreasonable delay laches - Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent - ‘Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient’ - unreasonable delay laches - Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent - ‘Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient’ - unreasonable delay laches - Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent - ‘Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient’ - unreasonable delay laches - Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent - ‘Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient’

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

Administrative Law Project

22nd July 2011

Ruben George Rock, 5th Semester BA LLB (Hons), Roll No. 548, NUALS, Kaloor.

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Veena, faculty, Administrative Law, for

giving me this opportunity to do a study and prepare a project on ‘Laches’ and whose

enlightening guidance and suggestions helped me in completing this work. I would also like

to extend my gratitude to the librarian without whose co-operation and guidance this project

would not have been completed.

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

CONTENTS:

Laches- Meaning, Purpose And General Application

Position In India

Case Laws On Laches –Principles laid down by courts for entertainment/rejection of

petitions marked by delay

Bibliography

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

Laches- Meaning, Purpose and General Application

‘Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient’

(Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent)

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. The primary requisite for the protection of one’s right

is his/ her alertness in guarding it. This equity principle may sound analogous to the age old

proverb ‘God helps those who help themselves’. The difference being that it is not God, but

law who insists the vigilance of those who comes before it for equity reliefs. When an injured

party has been slow in demanding remedy for a wrong which he has regarded with apparent

indifference for a long time, the court will decline to give him that remedy on grounds of

public policy.1 Equity does not come to the aid of slothful folks who are inert in claiming

their rights. Delay which is sufficient to prevent a party from obtaining an equitable remedy

is technically called laches.2 Thus equitable claims can be barred not only by limitation law

but also by unreasonable delay, called laches.3 Laches is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a

right or claim, in a way that prejudices the opposing party."  Laches is a form of estoppel for

delay. When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defence. Laches recognizes that a party to

an action can lose evidence, witnesses, and a fair chance to defend himself with the passage

of time from the date the wrong was committed. If the defendant can show disadvantages

because for a long time he or she relied on the fact that no lawsuit would be started, then the

case should be dismissed in the interests of justice.

The laches defence, like most of equity law, is a general concept containing many variations

on the maxim. Phrases used to describe laches include "delay that works to the disadvantage

of another," "inexcusable delay coupled with prejudice to the party raising the defence,"

"failure to assert rights," "lack of diligence," and "neglect or omission to assert a right."

As aforementioned, an essential element of laches is the requirement that the party invoking

the doctrine has changed its position as a result of the delay. In other words, the defendant is

1 Smith v. Clay, (1767) 3 Bro CC 6392 Snell’s Principles of Equity, p.333 Union of India v. Kishorilal Bablani, (1999) 1 SCC 729

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

in a worse position now than at the time the claim should have been brought. For example,

the delay in asserting the claim may have caused a great increase in the potential damages to

be awarded, or assets that could earlier have been used to satisfy the claim may have been

distributed in the meantime, or the property in question may already have been sold, or

evidence or testimony may no longer be available to defend against the claim. A defence

lawyer raising the defence of laches against a motion for injunctive relief (a form of equitable

relief) might argue that the plaintiff comes "waltzing in at the eleventh hour" when it is now

too late to grant the relief sought, at least not without causing great harm that the plaintiff

could have avoided. If an inference can be reasonably drawn that the plaintiff had agreed to

abandon his rights or acted in such a manner that it induced the other party to alter their

position on the reasonable faith that he has done so, the plaintiff’s claim will be treated as

abandoned. In such cases delay and lapse of time are material. However to reach such an

inference there is no any readymade formula. It depends heavily on facts and circumstances.

In the case of Chatrabhuj v. Mansukhram4, the plaintiff allowed his land to be occupied by

the defendant and this was acquiesced by him even beyond the period of limitation. The

claim by the plaintiff for the possession of the land was dismissed and no relief was granted

as the period of limitation for recovery of possession has expired. In this case, it is the

provisions of the limitation act that decided the outcome of the case.

An example of how the doctrine of laches operates:

If a person starts to build a garage that extends beyond the boundary line and into a

neighbour's property, and the neighbour immediately files a suit in equity and asks the court

to issue an injunction to stop the construction, the neighbour will likely prevail. On the other

hand, if the neighbour observes the construction of the garage on her property and does not

file suit until the garage is completed, the defendant may plead laches, arguing that the

neighbour had ample time to protect her property rights before the construction was

completed, and the court may find it unfair to order that the garage be torn down.

There should be some time limit for the prosecution of a claim in a court of justice. It is

dangerous and impractical to leave it to the sweet will of a person entitled to it. This idea has

been accepted by every legal system and the doctrine of laches is an indicator for the time-

4 AIR 1925 WLR 1019

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

limit, though in a crude form. The maxim of laches applies only when a claim is made to

equitable relief.5 Laches is the equitable equivalent of statutes of limitations. However, unlike

statutes of limitations, laches leaves it up to the court to determine, based on the unique facts

of the case, whether a plaintiff has waited too long to seek relief.

In England, those cases which are governed by statutes of limitation (ie Limitation Act, 1939)

either expressly or by analogy, the maxim does not apply. Those cases where there are

equitable claims to which the statute does not apply are covered by ordinary rules of laches.

In cases of purely equitable claims, equity courts have discretion either to grant or to refuse

the equitable relief, unless the equitable claim is expressly covered by a statute. In cases of

legal claims or equitable claims closely analogous to legal claims, provisions regarding

limitation as per statutes apply. But in case of fraud of defendant, which the plaintiff could

not discover even up to or after the limitation period was over, equity says that the time limit

for the plaintiff only from the date when the fraud was first discovered.

POSITION IN INDIA

In the Jadunath case6, back in 1932, Suhrawardy J declared that “The English doctrine of

delay and laches showing negligence in seeking relief in a Court of equity cannot be imported

into the Indian law in view of Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963 which fixes a period of three

years within which a suit for specific performance should be brought.” In the case of P.K.

Ramachandran v. State of Kerala7, court held that the law of limitation may act harsh on a

particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and

the court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, thus equity

cannot be the basis for extending the period of limitation. However a party shall not be

penalised for failing to adopt legal proceedings when the facts where wilfully concealed from

him.8 All this gives a notion that doctrine of laches has no general application in India, but a

limited scope.

5 Clarke and Chapman v. Hart (1858) 6 HL Cas 633.6 Jadunath v. Chandra Bhutan AIR 1932 Cal 4937 (1997) 7 SCC 5568 Pallav Seth v. Custodian (2001) 7 SCC 556

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

CASE LAWS ON LACHES:

PETITIONS REJECTED ON GROUND OF DELAY:

In Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports9, court held that when a law

prescribes a period of limitation for an action, such action has to be brought within the

prescribed period. A court or a tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an action or

proceeding after the expiration of the limitation period. In this case, the plaintiff sought for

the issuance of a writ in 1968 against alleged defaults of the government in 1959-62, which

required the court to look into government policies regarding international trade which varied

from year to year. Sikhri J, in this case also commented that it is well-settled that the relief

under Art. 226 is discretionary, and one ground for refusing relief under Art. 226 is that the

petitioner has filed the petition after delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation.

Although the laws of limitation do not directly apply to writ petitions, the court has held that

the lapse of a reasonable time can bar a petition.10 This is, however not a rule of law but a rule

of practice.

Even delay of less than the limitation period was disallowed in some cases where it would

have unnecessarily disturbed the vested rights or caused administrative inconvenience. A

petition against the grant of license to the respondent for manufacturing liquor made within

the period of limitation, but after the respondent had already acquired land and constructed

building for manufacturing liquor was not entertained.11 A writ petition challenging the

validity of an examination held for recruitment of judges in the subordinate judicial service,

filed 12 years after the examination was rejected.12

In the case of Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury vs State Of West Bengal13 the court refused to

entertain a petition challenging dismissal of the plaintiff from service, though the delay was

less than three years. The court found the delay to be inordinate and made the motives of the

petitioner suspicious.

9 AIR 1970 SC 76910 SA Rasheed v. Director of Mines and Geology (1995) 4 SCC 58411 Madhya Pradesh v. Nandhlal AIR 1987 SC25112 Uttar Pradesh v. Rafiquddin 1987 Supp SCC 40113 1972 AIR 2060

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu14 court opined that “It is not that there is

any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that

there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a

certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts

to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who

do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and

then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.” The

Court has said that even though any impugned order may be void, if the party does not

approach the Court within reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and have the

order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised in a

reasonable manner. When the discretion has been conferred on the Court, the Court may in

appropriate case decline to grant the relief, even if it holds that the order was void. 15 This

view was re-iterated in the 2010 case of Sawarn Lata Etc. Vs. State Of Haryana & Ors.

In Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh16 court held that “Therefore,

whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or while away and did not rise to the

occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the Court should be very

slow in granting the relief to the incumbent.” This was re-iterated in a 2010 judgment by the

Supreme Court.17

In a very recent case18 the Gujarat High Court said that the court has consistently rejected the

contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the

petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a

similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant

cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where

some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time.

ADMISSION OF PETITION DESPITE DELAY

14 AIR 1974 SC227115 State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi (1996) 6 SCC 445 16 AIR 2007 SC 92417 Haripriya Rayaningar vs The Secretary To Government18 Jethusingh v. State of Gujarat

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

The Supreme Court in the Dehri Rohtas Light Rly Co Ltd v. District Board, Bhojpur19 has

said that “where the petitioner show that illegality is manifest in the impugned action, and

explains the cause of delay, the delay may be condoned. In the case of Arun Kumar v. SE

Railway20, where a civil servant was shown to be lower in seniority list, and on his

representation made in 1967 the authorities replied only in 1973, it was held that a writ

petition against that seniority listing could not be rejected on grounds of delay. The petitioner

had made representations before the authorities soon after the list was produced, however

they never heeded. In Raja Pratap Narain v. Central Board, Direct Taxes21, Supreme Court

held that there was no law of limitation, especially for public bodies, against returning what

was wrongly recovered to whom it belonged.

The Courts have taken the view that they would not consider the time spent in pursuing legal

remedies as delay. Delay of 6 months caused due to representation made to the university

against its decision was held not to be a delay and the writ petition was admitted.22

In Kashinath G Jalmi v. The Speaker23 Supreme Court held that where a question of public

interest was involved, a court should be slow in rejecting a petition on the ground of delay.

The Court said “In our opinion the exercise of discretion by the court even where the

application is delayed, is to be governed by the objective of promoting public interest and

good administration; and on that basis it cannot be said that discretion would not be exercised

in favour of interference where it is necessary to prevent continuance of usurpation of office

or perpetuation of an illegality.”

In Jawaharlal Sazawal v. State of JK24, the Supreme Court was of the view that a writ petition

which was filed before the High Court on 1982 and coming for hearing after 16 years in not

barred by laches due to the special circumstances of the case. In this case a writ had been

filed in the High Court in 1972 by permanent government servants, serving in Government

industrial undertaking, subsequent to privatization, for a declaration that they will continue to

be government servants was dismissed as premature. Company granted them wages at a rate

admissible to government servants till 1979. In 1980 company denied them parity. Such order

was challenged in 1981 before the Supreme Court which relegated the petitioners to the

19 AIR 1993 SC 80220 AIR 1985 SC 48221 AIR 1975 SC 181622 Alka Garg v. Delhi University AIR 1981 Del 24123 1993 2 SCC 70324 (2002) 3 SCC 219

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

remedy under Article 226. Writ accordingly was filed before High Court in 1982 as was came

for hearing after 16 years. The court held an illiterate widow’s petition admissible despite

delay, who was denied of her husband’s arrear of family pension.25

The application of doctrine of laches, like any other discretionary power of the court, depends

heavily on facts and circumstances. There is no a conventional or well- established procedure

which lays down the reasons for application of doctrine of laches. Being an equity principle

the principles of laches are continuously in a state of evolution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books referred:

‘Administrative Law’ by I. P. Massey

‘Administrative Law’ by S.P. Sathe

‘Lectures on Administrative Law’ by C.K. Takwani

25 S.K. Mastan Bee v. G.M. South Central Railway, (2003) 1 SCC 184

Administrative Law

Unreasonable Delay or Laches

‘Equity, Trusts and Specific Relief’ by B.M. Gandhi 

Internet sites referred:

www.indiankanoon.org

www.manupatra.com

www.wikipedia.com

www.thefreedictionary.com

Administrative Law