Appeal No 1116 of 1965
Appeal from the order dated August 26 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No 498 D of 1964
MC Chagla Sardar Bahaclur Ajit Prasad Jain Vishnu B Saharya and Yougindra Kaushalani for the appellant
VA Seyid Muhammad and SP Nayar for the respondents
862 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
The appellant Durga Prashad filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution against the respondents
The High Court of Punjab Circuit Bench Delhi dismissed the petition in limine
Thereupon the appellant applied for a certificate under article 133 1a of the Constitution
The High Court gave this certificate on the ground that the value of the subject matter directly involved in the petition exceeds Rs 20000 
In our opinion this appeal must fail on the ground that the petition under article 226 of the Constitution was filed after great delay
The relevant facts are as under
The appellant was carrying on business of export and import and exported goods of the value of Rs 810325  FOB value Rs 80353045 during the period August 25 1958 to September 29 1958
On November 12 1958 the appellant applied for an import licence for art silk yarn of the fob value of Rs 80353045 nP under the Export Promotion Scheme
The Export Promotion Scheme was discontinued with effect from March 6 1959
On October 9 1959 import licence of the value of Rs 327841 only was issued to the appellant by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Bombay
His appeal against this order was rejected by the Joint Chief Controller on March 4 1960
It is alleged by the appellant that he was not given a hearing
The appellant filed a second appeal to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and this was dismissed on April 22 1961
Here again it is alleged that no  hearing was given to the appellant
He filed a representation against the order dated April 22 1961 and on that representation a supplementary import licence for import of art silk yarn of the value of Rs 30000 was issued to the appellant
This exhausted all the remedies he had under para 85 of the order relating to the Export Promotion Scheme but he instead of filing a writ chose to wait
The appellant apparently approached the Minister of International Trade by letter dated April 6 1964 this is the letter referred to in the letter of the Private Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and the Private Secretary vide his letter dated April 16 1964 wrote to him saying that his letter had been passed on to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports New Delhi and if so desired the appellant may see him in the matter
Apparently the Chief Controller invited him and on June 22 1964 he was informed that no further licence would be issued to him
On August 24 1964 the appellant filed the petition above mentioned in the High Court
No explanation has been given in the petition for the delay in filing the petition and it has not been explained what the appellant was doing between March 863 5 1962 when the supplementary licence was issued and April 6 1964
It is well settled that the relief under article 226 is discretionary and one ground for refusing relief under article 226 is that the petitioner has filed the petition after delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation
Gajendragadkar CJ speaking for the Constitution Bench n Smt
Narayani Debi Khaitan vs The State of Bihar1 observed
It is well settled that under article 226 the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary
There can be no doubt that if a citizen moves the High Court under article 226 and contends that his fundamental rights have been contravened by any executive action the High Court would naturally like to give relief to him but even in such a case if the petitioner has been guilty of laches and there are other relevant circumstances which indicate that it would be inappropriate for the High Court to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner ends of justice may require that the High Court should refuse to issue a writ
There can be little doubt that if it is shown that a party moving the High Court under article 226 for a writ is in substance claiming a relief which under the law of limitation was barred at the time when the writ petition was filed the High Court would refuse to grant any relief in its writ jurisdiction
No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches
That is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the High Court and like all matters left to the discretion of the Court in this matter too discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably
 Relying on the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor service Amravati2 the learned counsel for the appellant contends hat the delay should not debar him from seeking relief because he respondents have not suffered in any manner because of the delay
In this case Ramaswami J speaking for the Court referred to an earlier decision in Moon Mills vs Industrial Courta
1 CA No 140 of 1964 judgment dated September 22 1964
2  3 AIR 1967 SC 1450 53 54
Sup CI69 4 864 In that case Ramaswami J speaking for the Court observed It is true that the issue of a writ of certiorari is largely a matter of sound discretion
It is also true that the writ will not be granted if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causes prejudice to the adverse party
The principle is to a great extent though not identical with similar to the exercise of discretion in the Court of Chancery
 It would be noticed that Ramaswami J had first examined the question of delay and came to a finding that in fact there was n delay
Ramaswami J observed On behalf of the respondent Mr B Sen however pointed out that the conduct of the appellant does not entitle it to the grant of a writ because it has been guilty of acquiescence or delay
It was pointed out that the award of Mr What was given on April 25 1958 but an application to the High Court for grant of a writ was made long after on November 16 1959
We do not think there is any substance in this argument because the second respondent had made an application dated August 19 1958 to the Labour Court for enforcement of the award and the appellant had contested that application by a Written Statement dated September 15 1958
The Labour Court allowed the application on August 4 1959 and the appellant had preferred an appeal to the Industrial Court on August 31 1959
The decision of the industrial Court was given on October 24 1959 and after the appeal was dismissed the appellant moved the High Court for grant of a writ on November 16 1959
 The appellant in this case had claimed a mandamus or direction to the respondents to issue to the appellant import licence for art silk yarn of the value of Rs 80353045
It is well know that the exchange position of this country and the policy of Government regarding International trade varies from year t year and it would be rather odd for this Court to direct that a Import licence be granted in the year 1968 in respect of allege default committed by the Government in 1959 or 1962
In these matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by order of the Government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law rule or order with utmost expedition
865 The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this matter involved fundamental rights and this Court at least should not refuse to give relief on the ground of delay
But we are exercising our jurisdiction not under article 32 but under article 226 and as observed
by Gajendragadkar CJ in the passage extracted above even in the case of alleged breach of fundamental rights the matter must be left to the discretion of the High Court
In the result the appeal fails
Parties will bear their own costs
YP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant who carried on the business of export and import applied for an import licence to import certain goods
The licence was issued in 1959 for only a part of the value applied for
He filed appeals and exhausted all the remedies under para 85 of the order relating to the Export Promotion Scheme as a result of which finally in March 1962 he was granted a supplementary licence to import a small part of the goods
In April 1964 the appellant approached the Minister and he was informed that no further licence would be issued to him
Thereupon the appellant filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus for the issue of the import licence
The High Court dismissed the petition in limine but granted certificate Under article 1331a of the Constitution  HELD The appeal must fail
The petition under article 226 of the Constitution was filed after great delay
No explanation was given in the petition for the delay in filing the petition and it was not explained what the appellant was doing between March 6 1962 when the supplementary licence was issued and April 1964
The exchange position of this country and the policy of the Government regarding international trade varies from year to year and it would be rather odd for this Court to direct that an import licence be granted in the year 1968 in respect of alleged default committed by the Government in 1959 or 1962
In these matters it was essential that persons who were aggrieved by orders of the Government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law rule or order with utmost expedition
Even in the case of alleged breach of fundamental rights the matter must be left to the discretion of the High Court
864 G 865 B Smt
Narayani Debi Khaitan vs State of Bihar CA No 140 of 1964 judgment dated September 22 1964 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service Amravati  and Moon Mills vs Industrial Court AIR  1453 1454 referred to