DURGA PRASHAD versus CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS & ORS.

DURGA PRASHAD versus CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS & ORS.

Relief under Article 226 is discretionary; unexplained delay in approaching the court and lack of satisfactory explanation are valid grounds for refusing such relief, even in cases involving alleged breach of fundamental rights.

Parties
Appellant: Durga Prashad; Respondents: Chief Controller of Imports & Exports & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 November 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab High Court Order in Civil Writ No. 498 D of 1964
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mandamus, Delay in Filing Writ Petition, Discretion Under Article 226
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Mandamus Delay in Filing Writ Petition Discretion Under Article 226

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Durga Prashad

Appellant

Chief Controller of Imports & Exports & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab High Court Order in Civil Writ No. 498 D of 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appeal for mandamus seeking import licence can be entertained after great delay with no satisfactory explanation.
  2. 2 Whether relief under Article 226 should be refused due to laches or delay.

Ratio Decidendi

Relief under Article 226 is discretionary; unexplained delay in approaching the court and lack of satisfactory explanation are valid grounds for refusing such relief, even in cases involving alleged breach of fundamental rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Parties will bear their own costs