Laches

  1. Laches — Whether a writ petition against a void order can be dismissed on the point of laches — Held: That previous view was that there is no question of laches or limitation in case of a void order but subsequent view of this Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan on the point is that the question of limitation or of laches in writ jurisdiction is relevant and a writ petition can be dismissed on that score. Azad Govt. v. Haji Summander Khan 1995 SCR 259 (A)  PLD 1986 Pesh. 6,PLD 1963 Lah 8, PLD 1976 Kar. 119, PLD 1994 Kar. 140, 1987 SCMR 1119, PLD 1978 Que. 61, AIR 1962 All. 350, PLD 1993 Kar. 237, PLD 1993 Kar. 312, referred by the respondent but not relied.PLJ 1987 SC 433, 1992 SCR 214, PLJ 1981 SC 28, 1981 SCMR 740. referred by the appellant and relied.
  2. Writ petition against a void order can be dismissed on the point of laches. Azad Government & others  v. Haji Summander Khan & others 1995 SCR 259 (B)
  3. Delay in filing writ petitions–explanation given by the respondents that they filed the writ petitions after the delay because they were waiting for the outcome of the writ petition filed by other land owners repelled on the ground that even if the relevant law was held by the High Court ultra vires of the Constitution, they could not get the  relief as they were not party to the proceedings — Held: That if the explanation that laches in filing writ petition can be condoned on the ground that the concerned party was waiting for the decision of another identical case, then there would be no end to the litigation — Obviously that would frustrate the very purpose of laches in case of writ jurisdiction . Azad Govt. & others v. Haji Summander Khan & others 1995 SCR 259 (C)
  4. Laches — Writ petitions were belated by 5 to 8 months — No reasonable explanation given for delay — Writs were held to be hit by laches. Azad Government & others  v. Haji Summander Khan & others 1995 SCR 259 (D)
  5. The doctrine of laches does not apply to a writ of quo warranto. Azad Government v. Maj. General (Rtd.) Muhammad Hayat Khan & others 1995 SCR 283 (B)
  6. Whether the High Court could make laches a sou motu ground for dismissal of writ petition question of — The point of laches was not raised by any of the respondents — The High Court should not have in these circumstances made it a suo motu ground for dismissal of the writ petition. Residents of Mirpur  v. Mayor Municipal Corporation Mirpur 1995 SCR 332 (A) PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 93 and 1995 PSC 657 relied.
  7. The respondents not only kept mum at least for fifteen years but even benefitted themselves by getting allotments of the plots — Held: That the writ petition suffered from laches — It is well settled principle of law that if a party has been sleeping over the matter such party cannot be given relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Govt. v. Gohar Rehman and others 1996 SCR 112 (C) 1995 MLD 1343 relied.
  8. Long period passed without any effort from the appellant — He is not entitled to seek re-opening of the matter. Mahmood-ur-Rehman v. Atta Ullah Atta and 3 others 1997 SCR 330 (C)
  9. Cause of action — The cause of action, if any, arose to the appellant in September 1995 when he was not appointed as Assistant Commissioner — Writ filed in August 1997 hit by doctrine of laches and no relief could be granted — Writ filed by respondent does not give a fresh cause of action to the appellant. Mahmood-ur-Rehman v. Atta Ullah Atta and 3 others 1997 SCR 330 (E)
  10. When land not belong to the Authority its illegal usurpation under the colour of official authority cannot be condoned — Masjid being property of Allah no limitation would run against it — (PLD 1996 Lah.314 relied) Abdul Qayyum  v. Chairman, M.D.A. Mirpur, others 1999 SCR 391 (B)
  11. Laches — Principle of — Mere delay in filing writ petition did not justify to stay hands from going into merits of petitions and decide same on merits — Thus, Supreme Court is unable to subscribe to contention of learned counsel for appellants that writ petitions entailed dismissal on sole ground of being hit by laches — It is correct that laches may be considered as evidence for allegation in support of malafide  alongwith other circumstances in writ petitions but same cannot be made basis for dismissal of writ petitions. Azad Govt. v. Genuine Rights Commission AJK and 7 others 1999 SCR 1 (B)
  12. The point of laches is not attracted in the instant case — Writ was filed for enforcement of law —Legality and correctness of Govt. order was not challenged — Respondents wanted a direction to consider them for further promotion along with other eligible persons of civil Secretariat in accordance  with law — Held: Objection is without substance. AJK Govt. and another  v. Shakir Shah and 7 others 2001 SCR 352 (C)
  13. While deciding the question as to whether a writ petition is hit by the doctrine of laches facts of each case have to be kept in view — The cases in which the appointments of civil servants or employees of a Corporation which are amenable to writ jurisdiction, the question of laches has to be liberally construed in favour of the objector — The doctrine of laches is not applicable to writs of quo warranto and any person can at any stage move the High Court. Muhammad Asghar Khan v. Muhammad Hafizullah and 5 others 2001 SCR 97 (A)
  14. Un-explained delay is always considered fatal in writ jurisdiction as it attracts mischief of laches — No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the contesting respondent as to why she filed complaint about the incident after the delay of about 33 days — The writ petition is hit by the doctrine of laches — Appeal accepted judgment of the High Court set aside and writ petition dismissed. Nazar Hussain and 4 others  v. Azmat Bibi and 9 others 2002 SCR 150 (B)
  15. Laches/Delay — Review before Custodian — Limitation for — Laches — Knowledge — Review could be filed within thirty days but it had been filed after 7 years — Delay of each day has to be explained — No specific plea was taken about the date of knowledge. Ghulam Qadir & another v. The Custodian Evacuee Property and 13 others 2002 SCR 183 (C)
  16. Admittedly the road is under control and management of PWD — Private vehicle owners are playing public transport over same and Govt. is getting road tax — Respondents have been deprived of the use of their property under an arbitrary and capricious manner — It is a continuous wrong, question of laches is not attracted in this case. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Muhammad Arif Khan and 2 others 2003 SCR 456 (B)
  17. Principle of laches disentitles only those parties from relief in a Court of law who are found negligent in pursuing the remedy in time provided by law. Custodian of Evacuee Property AJ&K and Another v. Fatima Bibi and 15 others 2003 SCR 88 (C)
  18. There is no hard and fast rule for applying the doctrine of Laches — Writ can be refused to a person who was not vigilant — Delay in invoking writ jurisdiction constituting laches depends upon the facts of each case — Laches would be attracted only when a party by his conduct waived his right or on account of his negligence the other party would be put in a situation of disadvantage if remedy is allowed at a belated stage. Liaqat Ali v. Abdul Khaliq & 6 others 2004 SCR 266 (B)
  19. In applying principle of laches it is not only the delay which has to be considered but it is in fact unexplained delay which has been considered fatal to attract mischief of laches — If no satisfactory explanation is furnished the principle of laches can definitely be pressed into service — A party who sleeps over is right has to suffer. Tahir Mahmood Khan v. Azad Government & 3 others 2006 SCR 328  (A)
  20. It is not the time only which has to be considered to attract the principle of laches — Only the absence of reasonable explanation which attracts application of laches. Tahir Mahmood Khan  v. Azad Government & 3 others 2006 SCR 328 (B)
  21. The principle of laches is not generally applied in case of quo warranto, but at the same time the Court can also not ignore the application of this principle if the attending circumstances are such which militate against the bona fide of petitioner. Asif H. v. Azad Govt.  2008 SCR 619 (B)
  22. Contention that writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the basis of laches, has no substance — Held: The Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, would normally refuse to aid the stale claims, where claimants remain sleeping over their rights for a great length of time — Question arises as to what length of time would constitute laches — Held: It depends upon the circumstances of each case — The doctrine of laches  will not however be applied arbitrarily or capriciously — Delay per se would not normally be a ground for refusal of its aid by the Court — Its application would only be resorted where, in the estimation of Court, it would be unjust to allow the remedy or where by  conduct of one party, the other party  has been placed in disadvantageous situation. Azad Govt.v. Syed Tayyab Gilani & 14 others 2009 SCR 415 (H) PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 93 rel.
  23. Merely on the basis of delay, the principle of laches will not be applied because the respondents remained continuously demanding that terms and conditions of their service should be fixed according to the principle of parity with Punjab. Azad Government & 2 others v. Syed Tayyab Gilani & 14 others 2009 SCR 415 (J)
  24. The doctrine of laches will not apply arbitrarily and delay per se is no ground for invoking laches — It would only apply where the Court feels that it would be unjust to allow the remedy either because a party by his conduct has placed the other party in a situation of disadvantage in which it would not be reasonable to place him. Azad Govt. v. Syed Tayyab Gilani  2009 SCR 415 (I)
  25. Its application — consideration of special law dealing with the subject matter — held — while attending the question of laches, the spirit and scheme of special law dealing with the subject matter cannot be overlooked.  Further held—that after passage of specific period, especially when a person is negligent by his conduct, exercise of writ jurisdiction may result into causing injustice to the other party and also to defeat the very purpose of the special law. Muhammad Mobeen Khan v. Farzand Begum & 8 others  2014 SCR 291 (D) 2002 SCR 150 rel.
  26. Laches — consideration of — in the light of the conduct of the person invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the decree of his negligence if any, grant of relief sought by him and the injustice to be caused to the opposite party — The laches in simplest form means failure of a person to do something which should have been done by him within a reasonable time and is not synonymous with delay alone but it can be worked out to the disadvantage to another person in the matter of his right.  M. Mobeen Khan v. Farzand Begum & others 2014 SCR 291 (C) 2004 SCMR 400, ref.
  27. Universal application — the principles of laches — Held; no hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application of the principles of laches rather it has to be applied keeping in view the circumstances of each case.  M. Mobeen Khan v. Farzand Begum & 8 others 2014 SCR 291 (B)
  28. Circular was issued on 21.10.2009 that the post of Stenographer, B-15 shall be filled in by direct recruitment; the person interested can be filed their applications up to 23.10.2009, moreover, the test/interview shall be conducted on 26.10.2009 — The circular served upon the appellant on the same day, i.e. 21.10.2009 — appellant filed writ petition on 27.10.2009 after 5 days — Held: the appellant has not committed any negligence in pursuing the remedy — High Court was not justified to apply the principle of laches as the writ petition was filed well within time from the service of the circular. Altaf Hussain v. BISE & 4 others 2016 SCR 1159 (A) 2003 SCR 88 rel.
  29. Writ — amendment of — Mere delay is not ground for attracting the laches but where due to afflux of time a right has accrued to the other party, the principle of laches is fully attracted. Mst. Maqsood Begum  & 14 others v. Naseem Akhter & 9 others 2016 SCR 33 (D) PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 93, 1994 SCR 19, 2015 SCR 259 and MDA & others vrs. Rahim Akhter (civil appeal   No.  3/2013, decided on 13. 2. 2014) ref.
  30. In the writ proceedings the laches play an important role and delay of each and every day has to be explained. AJK Govt. & 2 others versus Mehr-un-Nisa & 5 others 2016 SCR 594 (B)
  31. Enforcement of service rules — appointment  made on 27-04-2010 — Rules made on 19-05-2015 and published in  official gazette on 17-06-2015 — writ petition filed on 13-08-2015 — attraction of principle of laches — objection misconceived as appointment of the appellant no challenged, only direction for enforcement of the Rules sought — objection repelled — The other argument regarding application of principle of laches also appears to be misconceived. Perhaps, the learned counsel for the appellants while advancing argument misconceived the facts with reference to appointment order of the appellant, dated 27-04-2010, and deemed that the writ petition is hit by principle of laches. In our opinion, according to the facts and prayed relief it is not correct perception. As mentioned hereinabove that the departmental Rules were amended vide notification dated 19-05-2015, which have been published in the official gazette 17-06-2015. It appears that the writ petition was filed on 13-08-2015, after enforcement of these Rules, within less than two month’s period. The petitioner has not challenged the proprietary of the appointment order dated 27.04.2010, rather he sought the remedy that the Rules amended vide notification dated 19-05-2015, be implemented. In view of this fact, the principle of laches is not attracted. Javed Iqbal v. Tasadaq Hussain & 9 others 2016 SCR 1589 (D)
  32. —principle of—application of—on matter not attained finality—similar relief to others given by the Govt.— in view of the particular facts of this case the conclusion drawn by the High Court is not correct. The documents brought on the record by the parties clearly speak that eh appellants-land owners in this regard applied for de-awarding the land in the year 1998 and their basic claim was based upon notification dated 04.09.1991, through which 17 kanal acquired land was de-awarded in favour of the land owners. Not only this, the appellants also furnished copy of notification dated 09.05.2003(Annexure “G”) through which 15 kanal , 1 marla acquired land was released and de-awarded in favour of land-owners . It is apparent from the record that matter of de-awarding and releasing the land is under consideration of the Government since long and consequently a considerable acquired land has been de-awarded and released in favour of the land-owners. Thus, when the appellants’ application is awaiting disposal before the Government since 1998 and the Government had de-awarded the land acquired through the same award in favour of the land-owners of the same village through notification dated 09.05.2003, in this context the writ petition cannot be declared incompetent by attraction of  principle of laches. Abdul Majeed &others v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2017 SCR 397 (A)
  33. —It may be stated that simple laches ordinarily does not create a hurdle in giving relief to a party but when the conduct of a party amounts to waiver due to which the other party is put an ugly position, it gains importance and in that eventuality the laches of few days is fatal. Chief Engineer Building/Public Health v. Sadder Ilyas Alam 2017 SCR 1609 (C) PLJ 1995 SC (AJK) 78)
  34. —principle of —see Bashir Ahmed & others vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 195 (B)
  35. —An order which has been handed down in total disregard of the mandatory procedure and by offending the principle of natural justice cannot be taken as valid order and the writ petition filed against such an order can be decided on merits by ignoring the question of laches. Khushi Muhammad vs Mohammad Saddique & others 2018 SCR 342 (B) 2012 SCMR 280, 2004 SCR 266 ref
  36.  — writ—joining of necessary party after 4 years–negligent conduct proved—right accrues to other party—principle of laches fully applicable—the principle of laches cannot be applied in routine in every case, however, in view of the settled principle of law when negligence of a party is proved and due to its negligent conduct, a right is accrued to the other party then principle of laches is fully attracted. Tanvir Tahir v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 91 (A)
  37. —effect of—under law laches disentitles a party from relief in a Court of law who is found negligent in pursuing the remedy well in time. Syed Shahid Hussain Kazmi v. Muhammad Ali Hamdani & others 2019 SCR 911 (A)
  38. —effect of—right accrue to other party—when negligence of a party is proved and due to its negligence a right is accrued to the other party then principle of laces is fully attracted. Syed Shahid Hussain Kazmi v. Muhammad Ali Hamdani & others 2019 SCR 911 (B) 1995 SCR 259, 2019 SCR 91 rel
  39. —principle of laches attracts where right waived or other party put in position of disadvantage if remedy is allowed—the respondent filed writ eight months after the writ petitions filed by the appellants and the others had been accepted. They had been allowed to participate in interview and the appellant selected consequently—-It is settled principle of law the doctrine of laches would be attracted where the party invoking writ jurisdiction by his conduct has waived his right or on account of his negligence the other party would be put in a situation of disadvantage if the remedy is allowed to such person at a belated stage. Taimoor Khalid v.Muhammad Azeem & 6 others 2020 SCR 253 (A)
  40.  —laches attracts where, due to negligence of a party, a valuable right is accrued to contesting party—Appellant had been selected in consequence of acceptance of his writ petition, allowing to participate in the interview conducted by the PSC and finally selected. Whereas, the respondent filed writ after acceptance of writ of the writ of the appellant and the others—Doctrine of laches was fully attracted in the case as the negligence on the part of the respondent is evident— By lapse of time, due to the negligence of the respondent, a valuable right was accrued to the appellant as he has finally been selected, therefore, in such a situation, the writ was liable to be dismissed on the sole point of laches. Appeal accepted and writ dismissed. Taimoor Khalid v.Muhammad Azeem & 6 others 2020 SCR 253 (B)
  41.         — According to the settled principle of law, it is not only the delay which has to be considered fatal to attract the mischief of laches— if no satisfactory explanation is furnished, the principle of laches can definitely be pressed into service and the party who sleeps over his right has to suffer. Raja Allahdad Versus Mirpur Development Authority & 4 others 2021 SCR 198 (A)
  42. — Application of—writ—delay—effect of— no hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application of the principle of laches—it has to be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case—cause of action arose on 09.05.2016 but writ was filed on 19.10.2018 without furnishing any explanation regarding such a long delay—writ petition was hit by the principle of laches. Health Deptt. &others v. Falik Sher & another 2022 SCR 21 (A)
  43. —Writ—delay of each and every day has to be explained by a party who has been negligent enough to file the writ petition after a huge delay—unexplained delay is always considered fatal in writ petition as it attracts mischief of laches. Naseem Iqbal AJ&K Govt. & others 2022 SCR 145 (A) 2016 SCR 655 rel
  44. —Writ—filed after eight months of impugned handout— condonation of delay was prayed on the ground that the Public Service Commission did not issue the copy in time—held: that due to negligence of a party, right accrued to other party, attracting laches—Held: the appellant was not vigilant in pursuing his own remedies provided to him under law. He has failed to give any plausible and reasonable explanation in filing the writ petition so late. It is settled principle of law that when due to negligence of the party, a right is accrued to the other party, the principle of laches is fully attracted. High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition. Masroor Ahmed v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 1001 (A)
  45. 2019 SCR 91 &Taimoor Khalid v. Muhammad Azeem, Civil appeal No. 337 of 2018, decided on 14.02.2019 rel.
  46. —Writ petition—attraction of laches— three months declared as reasonable time to file writ petition—-writ petition filed after delay of three months then reasonable explanation has to be furnished to condone delay  writ petition filed after nine months of passing of impugned order  Held: the respondent failed to give any plausible and reasonable explanation with regard to filing of writ petition. Further held: Constitutional petition has to be filed within a reasonable time. Aggrieved person has to challenge the impugned order not later than three months, which is a reasonable time and if Constitutional petition is filed after the expiry of three months the period thereafter has to be adequately and sufficiently be explained by the petitioner. The appeal accepted and writ petition filed by respondents were dismissed. Syed Altaf Hussain Bukhari v. Zeeshan Shoukat & others  2022 SCR 1088 (B)
  47. —It is a settled principle of law that delay of each and every day is to be explained by the party who has been negligent enough to file the writ petition after such a long delay. Anayat Hussain v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 1456 (A)1995 SCR 259, 2004 SCR 391, 2016 SCR 594 and 2020 SCR 253 ref.
  48. —Writ Petition—principle of laches—unexplained delay in filing the writ petition—exceptions to attraction of principle of laches, dealt and explained in detail—the question of laches in the writ petition is always considered in the light of the conduct of the person invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court and the degree of his negligence if any and that if by grant of relief being sought by him no injustice is caused to the opposite part , the Constitution petition should not be dismissed merely on the ground of laches and without examining the dictates of justice. The laches in simplest form means failure of a person to do something which should have been done by him within a reasonable time and is not synonymous with delay alone bit it can be worked out to the disadvantage to another person in the matter of his right. In suitable cases, the Court in its discretionary jurisdiction, subject to the offering of a reasonable explanation, can condone the delay in filing an appeal, review or revision as the case may be and similarly, can also ignore the delay if any in filing of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Ghazala Farid v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 1615 (A) 1995 SCR 259 rel.
  49.  — writ petition — challenge to appointment of an candidate — objection as to attraction of principle of laches due to late filing of writ petition — distinction made as to attraction of laches in cases of challenge to selection process and eligibility of candidate — Held: As for as the objection as regard to attraction of laches is concerned, the respondent had no knowledge of the fact that the appellant applied for the post, or filed writ petition. Later on, on appointment of the appellant, the respondent who was next to the appellant in the waiting list probed and got to know about the domicile status of the appellant. Further, it would be very imprudent to expect from candidates to start collecting copies of the applications and appended documents of the other candidates to dig out validity of the documents, their eligibility to apply and preempt to challenge. Obviously, once a candidate is appointed then other candidate may come forward to challenge the eligibility and appointment. Therefore, principle of laches and estopple do not attract — as the grievance of the respondent, herein, is not against the selection process conducted for the disputed post rather his grievance was in relation to eligibility of the appellant regarding filing of application against the disputed post, therefore, the question of laches does not arise. Objection overruled. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (GG)
  50. — writ jurisdiction — attraction of laches — unexplained delay is always considered fatal in writ jurisdiction as  it attracts mischief of laches — question of laches in writ petition is always considered in the light of the conduct of the person invoking writ jurisdiction, the degree of negligence if any, grant of relief sought and the injustice to be carried to the opposite party — the laches in simplest form means failure of a person to do something which should have been done by him within a reasonable time and is not synonymous with delay alone but it can be worked out to the disadvantage to another person in the matter of his right. Wajid Hussain versus Naeem Ashraf & others 2023 SCR 652(C) 2002 SCR 150 rel.
error: Content is protected !!