same was not considered treating the land owners as a subject of medieval India, but not as a citizen under the Constitution. It declared that the State, especially, a welfare State which is governed by the Rule of Law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond the Constitution, and though delay and laches may be one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion, it is not an absolute impediment. It held that if whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise discretion more so when no third party interest is involved. It held that petition is not hit by doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, since the cause of action is continuous, and further, the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience. It noted that no period of limitation is prescribed for the exercise of jurisdiction by Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of a certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so compelling that the Court would be inclined to interfere with in spite of delay. In the event that the claim made by an applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned; where the circumstances justifying the conduct exist and the illegality, which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. It held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the
