Bench:
- Justice M. Hidayatullah
- Justice J.C. Shah
- Justice S.M. Sikri
- Justice G.K. Mitter
- Justice V. Ramaswami
Facts:
The petitioners, Tilokchand Motichand & Ors., collected sales tax from their customers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The Sales Tax Officer ordered the forfeiture of ₹26,563.50 under Section 21(4) of the Act, alleging that the petitioners had not refunded the collected tax to their customers as required. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court on March 28, 1958, challenging the forfeiture order and the validity of Section 21(4), claiming it violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition on November 28, 1958, upholding the validity of Section 21(4) and the forfeiture order. In a separate case, Kantilal Babulal & Bros. v. H.C. Patel, the Supreme Court struck down Section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, on September 29, 1967, on similar grounds. Relying on this judgment, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court on February 9, 1968, seeking a refund of the forfeited amount.
Issues:
- Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable after a significant delay following the High Court’s dismissal of the initial petition.
- Whether the doctrine of laches (unreasonable delay) applies to petitions filed under Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Arguments:
- Petitioners’ Arguments:
- Argued that the forfeiture was unconstitutional, as Section 21(4) violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f).
- Contended that the right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and should not be barred by any limitation period or the doctrine of laches.
- Respondents’ Arguments:
- Asserted that the petitioners had delayed unreasonably in approaching the Supreme Court, as the forfeiture occurred in 1958, and the petition under Article 32 was filed only in 1968.
- Emphasized that the doctrine of laches should apply to prevent the abuse of the judicial process and ensure finality in litigation.
Ratio Decidendi:
- Application of the Doctrine of Laches: The Supreme Court held that while Article 32 provides a guaranteed remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights, this remedy is subject to the doctrine of laches. Emphasized that unreasonable delay in filing a petition can lead to its dismissal, even when fundamental rights are at stake.
- Discretionary Nature of Relief under Article 32: The Court observed that the power to grant relief under Article 32 is discretionary and can be denied if there is an undue delay in seeking the remedy.
Observations:
- Public Policy and Judicial Discipline: The Court noted that the doctrine of laches is founded on public policy, aiming to bring finality to litigation and maintain judicial discipline.
- Fundamental Rights and Procedural Limitations: While Article 32 provides a guaranteed remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights, this remedy is subject to procedural limitations, including the doctrine of laches, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 32, holding that it was barred by the doctrine of laches due to the petitioners’ unreasonable delay in approaching the Court.
Important Terms:
- Article 32 of the Constitution: Provides individuals the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Doctrine of Laches: A legal principle that bars claims where there has been an unreasonable delay in pursuing them, resulting in prejudice to the other party.
- Ultra Vires: Acts or decisions made beyond the scope of the authority granted by law or corporate charter.
-
Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution: Provided citizens the fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property; this provision was later repealed by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
