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 : 7209 of 2009 Between: K. Obelu, S/o. Mallaiah, E.No. 302592, R/o. Mogullapalli Village and Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Rep by its Chairman, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Godavarikhani Depot, Karimnagar District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri.P.Sridhar Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.2: Smt P.Rajani Reddy The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash awad dated 10-06-2004, published on 16-11-2004 vide G.O.Rt No.1129 dated 15-07-2004, on the file of respondent No.1. The petitioner was driver of respondent No.2. Following the departmental proceedings, he was removed from service for his unauthorized absence by respondent No.2 by order dated 16-02- 1996. The petitioner’s appeal filed against the said order having become abortive, he raised industrial dispute by way of I.D.No.77 of 2003 before respondent No.1. The said I.D was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide its award dated 10-06-2004, which was published on 16-11-2004. After keeping quiet for nearly 4 ½ years, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had given reasons for not immediately approaching this Court. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, the petitioner stated as under- “I submit though the award was passed on 10-06-2004, published on 16-11-2004, the said award copy was not received by me and I am staying in other village and working as agricultural labour and I shifted my family to Mogullapalli from Kesannapally. The advocate on record also did not inform me the result of I.D despite I approached several times. At that stage, I approached for a certified copy dated 18-02-2009 and I received the same on 21-02-2009. Added to it I am also out of service from the date of illegal order of removal and also due to financial problems I could not approach this Hon’ble Court immediately.” In my considered view, the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing his litigation. The petitioner’s shifting his family to a different village can never be a ground to entertain a writ petition with the inordinate delay of more than 4 ½ years after the passing of the award. Had the petitioner been diligent enough, he would not have failed to know about the progress of his case and its disposal. 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 4 ½ 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] 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.9459 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