SHAMSUL ISLAM AND Another vs Sh. ARJAMAND AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, on the ground of laches. The core legal question is whether the unexplained long delay by the petitioner justified the dismissal of the constitutional petition for laches. The Supreme Court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained, rendering the dismissal of the writ petition unexceptionable, and thus found no justification for interference. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay amounting to laches is a valid ground for dismissing a constitutional petition, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with such discretion exercised by the High Court unless sufficient justification is shown.
- Whether an unexplained long delay amounting to laches justifies the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
- Is the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition on the ground of laches unexceptionable when the delay is not sufficiently explained?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 20-9- 1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby a constitu--tional petition arising out of a case under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was dismissed on grounds of ]aches.
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the long delay on the part of the petitioner which amounted to laches, has not been suffi--ciently explained. Dismissal of the writ petition on this ground was unexcep--tionable. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.