approaches the Court of law. Equally undisputed, however, is the legal proposition that an inordinate and unexplained delay in a given case should not be likely brushed aside and as observed by the Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, Court must weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same and while a Constitutional Court has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens, it must simultaneously keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Delay defeats equity and law helps the vigilant and not the indolent, are well-accepted and recognized principles forthcoming from wealth of judicial precedents. In Mool Chandra v. Union of India and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878, the Supreme Court once again affirmed that if negligence can be attributed to a litigant, Court would be justified in rejecting the plea for condonation, particularly, when sufficient cause for the delay is not made out. In this context, I may also allude to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another v. Shah Hyder Beig and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 48.
