one month. 5. The learned Single Judge held that the appellants could not have preferred a fresh Writ Petition to seek the same relief. Consequently, the Writ Petitions were dismissed, on the account of delay and laches, and also on the ground that the appellants had preferred successive Writ Petitions for the same relief and cause of action. 6. We have heard learned counsels. 7. Since no counter affidavit had been called for in the Writ Petitions, the respondents were required to file their counter affidavit in the present Special Appeals, which have been filed. 8. A perusal of the counter affidavit shows that, after the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petitions & Special Appeals, taken note of hereinabove, orders of confiscation were also passed, which was a fresh and later development. Moreover, we are of the view that, since more than three years had elapsed from the earlier round of litigation, the appellants were entitled to again approach the Court, particularly, when the order passed by the Division Bench, requiring the respondents to decide their representation, had not been complied with. 9. We are not commenting on the merits of the appellants/ writ petitioners’ claim in the Writ Petition, since the same has not been inquired into by the learned Single Judge. 10. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of the appellants, in the Writ Petitions, should be considered on its own merits, and the writ petitioners could not have been non-suited on the ground of delay and laches.
