Sr. No. 1 Regular list IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 778/2025 CM(1957/2025) M/S TARMAC ROAD AND ROOF BUILDERS …Petitioner(S) Through: Mr. M.A. Thakur, Advocate Vs. U.T OF JK AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 15.04.2025 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for following the reliefs:- (i) CERTIORARI: - By issuance of writ of certiorari, the communication bearing No. AEE/1759-62 dated: 30.01.2023 be quashed. (ii) MANDAMUS: - By issuance of writ of Mandamus, whereby commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to go ahead and proceed with the work. Respondents be further commanded, to release the bills submitted by the petitioner firm on account of work done liability with interest. 2. The aforesaid reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner on the premise that petitioner herein, being a firm, is registered as an AAY class contractor, having executed number of works and projects in the Union Territory of J&K, responded to a tender notice bearing NIT No. 101 of R&B Bandipora/2022-23/4180-84 dated 22.08.2022, issued by the respondents for construction of Govt. Degree College at Ajas Bandipora Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 23.04.2025 for an amount of Rs. 961.59/- lacs as costs of the work, which work had to be completed within a period of 18 months, whereafter the petitioner firm was allotted the work in question in terms of allotment order dated 25.11.2022, whereupon the petitioner firm started to execute the work pursuant to letter dated 25.10. 2022, issued by respondent No. 3, however, after mobilizing all its resources in this regard the respondents issued letter dated 30.01.2023, inter alia, providing therein that the execution of the work in question is suspended till formal administrative approval is accorded by the Competent Authority, in that, the said administrative approval had not been accorded for the project in question being “AAA” in nature. 3. The short grievance projected by the petitioner in the instant petition is that despite having been allotted validly and legally the work in question in terms of allotment order dated 25.11.2022 by the respondents, the impugned letter dated 30.01.2023 could not have been issued and that though upon receipt of the said impugned letter, the petitioner submitted series of representations before the respondents for accord of administrative approval, the said representations, however, did not yield any results, thus leaving no option open to the petitioner herein but to approach this Court through the medium of the instant petition for seeking the aforesaid reliefs. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. It is an admitted fact, as has been stated by the petitioner, that the work in question came to be allotted in its favour in terms of the allotment order dated 25.11.2022 and vide letter dated 30.01.2022 Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 23.04.2025 suspension of the work in question came to be ordered by the respondents till formal administrative approval of the work in question is obtained from the Competent Authority. 5. Though the petitioner has annexed various letters and communications with the writ petition to indicate and show that upon receipt of the impugned communication dated 30.01.2023, the petitioner concern continuously represented before the respondents for accord of said administrative approvals, yet the petitioner concern has failed to spell out any cogent and sufficient reasons in the petition as to what prevented it from approaching this Court for seeking the reliefs which are being sought now after a period of more than two years. 5. It is settled position of law that though there is no limitation prescribed in filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, law is equally settled that delay and latches would affect the maintainability of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said position of law has been laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as “M.P. Ram Mohan Raja Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors reported in (2007) 9 SCC 878” in “State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Bhailal Bhai”, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Apex Court at paragraph 17 has laid down as follows:- “It has been made clear more than once that the power to give relief under Art. 226 is a discretionary power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus. Among the several matters which the High Courts rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it.... Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 23.04.2025 It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any rule for universal application. It may however be stated as a general rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus.” A similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case titled as “U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Jawant Singh reported in 2016 (11) SCC 464”, wherein it has further been held that when a person is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, his writ petition cannot be heard after a couple of years. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments supra and the facts noticed in the preceding paras, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in the matter, owing to delay and latches. 9. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 15.04.2025 “Mir Arif” Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 23.04.2025