IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 534 OF 2010 SMT. CLARA RODRIGUES ... Petitioner Versus THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES MORMUGAO PORT TRUST AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Shivraj P. Gaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. B. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 20th July, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. This Writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of Estate Officer, dated 31.3.2004. It appears that petitioner had filed first appeal to the District Court which was dismissed on 16.12.2004. Thereafter it appears that there was inaction on the part of the respondent in that no execution proceedings were taken up to execute the said order of the Estate Officer dated 31.3.2004. Such an action appears to have been initiated by the respondent for the first time after the order of Estate Officer and the first appellate authority, only by letter dated 29.5.2010. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is no limitation to entertain a writ petition. Learned Counsel further submits that respondent themselves delayed in taking action in executing the Order of Estate Officer dated 31.3.2004. Counsel further submits that he had raised issue of bias before Estate Officer which was decided by the same Estate Officer. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was a lessee and lease rent was accepted until the year 1978. 4. Shri Nadkarni, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that no Court will exercise writ jurisdiction in a case where the petitioner approaches the Court with a delay ranging from 6 months to one year. Senior Counsel submits that in this case even a ordinary suit have been barred since the delay is more than 3 years. Learned Senior counsel also submits that the plea of bias was not raised before the first appellate authority. 5. In my view, either of the two submissions made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. This writ petition is filed after gross delay and latches of over five years on 17.7.2010. The Estate officer has passed eviction order dated 31.3.2004. The first Appellate Court has rejected the appeal on 16.12.2009. The petitioner ought to have approached this Court with due diligence; that incidentally the respondent took no further action cannot give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner. As the petitioner has approached this Court with gross delay, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Petition therefore, is hereby dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn