The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that procedural delays in filing interim applications in writ petitions are not fatal if adequately explained and compensated, reinforcing the principle that justice must not be denied on technical grounds alone.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sadguru Dharmashala Prakashe (Shetra Dakshin Kashi), filed Writ Petition (ST) No. 28753 of 2022 challenging an order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner concerning the administration of a charitable trust. The petition sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging violation of natural justice and arbitrary exercise of statutory powers.
Procedural History
- 2022: Original writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court.
- 15 March 2024: Registrar (Judicial-I) dismissed the interim application without hearing, citing delay and non-compliance with procedural norms.
- 546 days later: The applicant filed the present Interim Application (ST) No. 33063 of 2025 seeking recall of the dismissal order and restoration of the writ petition.
- The delay was attributed to internal administrative transitions and reliance on legal advice that the matter was under review.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought: (a) condonation of the 546-day delay; (b) recall of the order dated 15 March 2024; and (c) restoration of the writ petition to the court’s file.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether delay in filing an interim application in a writ petition can be condoned under the court’s inherent powers, and if so, under what conditions - particularly when no prejudice is shown to the opposite party.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Rohan P. Gaikwad, Advocate for the applicant, relied on State of Maharashtra v. M. Hanif and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that procedural fairness under Article 14 and Article 21 mandates that courts should not dismiss applications on technical grounds without examining the merits. He emphasized that the delay was not mala fide, the subject matter involved public trust administration, and no prejudice was caused to the respondents.
For the Respondent
The Joint Charity Commissioner did not file a written reply. The court noted that the respondents did not contest the application on substantive grounds, nor did they demonstrate any prejudice arising from the delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of interim applications in writ jurisdiction and the scope of its power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Article 226. It held that while procedural compliance is important, rigid adherence to timelines without considering the context defeats the purpose of constitutional remedies.
"The object of writ jurisdiction is to secure justice, not to create hurdles for litigants on account of technical delays, especially where the subject matter involves public trust and no prejudice is shown."
The Court distinguished cases where delay was wilful or caused by negligence, noting that here, the applicant had acted promptly upon realizing the error. It further observed that the respondents had not raised any substantive objection, suggesting the delay did not impact their ability to defend.
The Court also affirmed its authority to impose costs as a deterrent against future delays, balancing equity with accountability.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court held that delay in filing an interim application may be condoned if the explanation is reasonable, no prejudice is caused, and costs are imposed. The order dated 15 March 2024 was quashed, the writ petition was restored, and costs of ₹5,000 were directed to be paid to the Kirtikar Law Library.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Is Not Fatal if Justified
- Practitioners may now confidently seek condonation of delays in interim applications if the explanation is credible and the matter involves constitutional rights.
- Courts are expected to examine the substance over form, particularly in public interest litigation.
Costs as a Deterrent Are Now Standard
- Courts will routinely impose nominal costs (e.g., ₹5,000) to discourage avoidable delays without dismissing the application outright.
- Payment of costs must be documented and filed with the court - failure may result in non-restoration.
Restoration Is Not Automatic, But Accessible
- Restoration of a dismissed writ petition requires a separate application, but the threshold is now lower if the delay is explained and costs are paid.
- Practitioners should always file a detailed affidavit explaining the cause of delay, even if the opposite party does not oppose.
