IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3220 of 2009 Between: G.P.Raju, S/o. Applaswamy Naidu, R/o. Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram district. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Salur Depot, Vizianagaram District. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Parvathipuram Depot, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: C.APPAIAH SHARMA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 18-03-1993 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed the present writ petition, questioning the said order, after keeping quiet for more than fifteen years. At the hearing, Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had given reasons for not immediately approaching this Court. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, the petitioner stated as under- “I submit that the delay in approaching this Hon’ble Court is because of the pendency of the statutory appeals and moreover I was transferred from Parwathipuram Depot to other Depots frequently and as I am ready and willing to loose the monetary benefits, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice and fair play in action.” In my considered view, the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing his litigation. The reason of petitioner’s transfer from one Depot to another Depot cannot be a ground to entertain a writ petition, which is filed, with the inordinate delay of more than fifteen years. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced contentions on merits, I have not felt persuaded to entertain the same because, the petitioner has raised a stale claim after more than fifteen years of the passing of the impugned order. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not expressly contain limitation on exercise of jurisdiction, the superior Courts have evolved the doctrine of laches based on public policy. A person who seeks to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court should be diligent enough to pursue his litigation, lest the settled matters will get unsettled and stale claims get revived. (See State of Madhya Pradesh v . Bhailal Bhai[1], Trilokchand and Motichand v. M.B.Munshi[2], Rabindranath v. Union of India[3], Ashok Kumar Mishra and another v. Collector, Raipur and others[4] and City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others[5]) For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.4196 of 2009 is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st April, 2009 vrn C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st April, 2009 Vrn [1] AIR 1964 SC 1006 [2] (1969) 1 SCC 110 [3] AIR 1970 SC 470 [4] AIR 1980 SC 112 [5] (2009) 1 SCC 168