Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): In addition, he filed, in this Court, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which this Court granted. Liddy v. Lamone, 395 Md. 420, 910 A.2d 1061 (2006). The appellees and Gansler subsequently filed a Joint Cross-Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Oral argument was heard on November 2, 2006, and, on that same day, the Court issued its Order vacating the judgment of the Circuit Court and remanding the case to that court with directions to dismiss it on the ground of laches. We now set forth the reasons for that Order. B. Laches is one of the affirmative defenses recognized and expressly listed in M d. Rule 2-323. Generally, it must be pled, but it can be invoked by a court on its own initiative. See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (<HOLDING>); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is itself generally a matter of discretion (B) holding that a court of appeals may transfer petitions for writ of mandamus to the court of proper jurisdiction pursuant to  1631 (C) holding public standing doctrine permitted action for emergency writ of mandamus (D) recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus (E) holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances
Output (English): holding public standing doctrine permitted action for emergency writ of mandamus