16. At the outset, we observe that the petitioner did not comply with the time lines to submit a complete application which was to be filed by March 31, 2016. The petitioner was informed of the rejection of its application on May 05, 2016. The petitioner although attempted to give justification by its letters as noted by us, however the fact remains that the petitioner approached the PRC for the first time by an application dated November 21, 2017, which was almost 19 months after rejection of its application being deficient. The petitioner’s approach of merely writing letters after the decision dated May 05, 2016 cannot be construed as an assertion of its rights in the manner known to law. It is further, quite glaring that although the PRC decided the petitioner’s application on January 30, 2019, the petitioner has belatedly approached this Court by the present petition which was filed on February 07, 2020, which is almost one year after the PRC passed the impugned order. The explanation as set out in the petition is far from satisfactory so as to categorize the petitioner’s conduct to be that of a diligent litigant not sleeping over its rights. We, therefore, find much substance in the submission of Mr.Jetly that the petitioner was not diligent in asserting its rights and pursuing its cause. The delay, in our opinion, is quite gross which would disentitle the petitioner to any equitable and discretionary reliefs. We are, accordingly, not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under
