IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7243 of 2009 Between: Bone Thavitayya S/o.Ramulu R/o.K.Kottavalasa, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC S,.Kota Depot Vizianagaram District 3 The Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Visakhapatnam rep.by its Presiding officer ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: SRI C.APPAIAH SARMA Counsel for respondent No.3: --- The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner, who was a Conductor of respondent No.1- Corproation, was removed from service on cash and ticket irregularities by order dated 28-08-2000 passed by respondent No.2. The said order was questioned by him in I.D.No.179 of 2001 before respondent No.3. The said I.D was dismissed by award dated 22-12-2003. The petitioner filed the present writ petition, questioning the said award, after keeping quiet for more than 5 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 8 of the affidavit, the petitioner stated as under- “I submit that I have no source of income, and no properties either movable or immovable. I am not gainfully employed during the out of employment period in spite of my best efforts and I faced much hardship to eke out my livelihood. I submit that the delay in approaching this Hon’ble Court is neither willful nor wonton but for the reason of not having money even to approach this Hon’ble Court. If the delay is not condoned, I will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. I submit that I undertake that I am willing to loose the monetary benefits for the delay period in the event of my reinstatement.” In my considered view, the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing his litigation. The reason of petitioner’s poverty cannot be a ground to entertain a writ petition, which is filed, with the inordinate delay of more than five years, after the passing of the award. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he made any effort to get legal aid from the Legal Services Authority. 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 5 years of the passing of the award. 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] a n d 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.9493 of 2009 is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th 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