In Brief
A rival applicant for LPG distributorship challenged another applicant's approval via writ petition three years after the approval was granted and after she had participated in the same selection process. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition should have been dismissed on grounds of delay and laches alone. The petitioner had full knowledge of the allotment (decided by draw of lots in 2013-2014) but waited until 2017 to challenge it, only after the successful applicant sought to use alternate land. The Court reaffirmed that while writ jurisdiction under Article 226 exists to protect rights, it is discretionary and cannot be extended to tardy litigants who acquiesce in administrative action for years. The appeal was allowed and the Single Judge's dismissal order was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.