JUDGMENT S. A. DHARMADHIKARI, J. – This intra Court appeal under section 2(1) of the M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the final order dated 6-4-2017 passed in W. P. No. 8537/2013, whereby the writ petition preferred by appellant has been dismissed. 2. The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 18-4-2011 passed by the respondents-Authorities placing the appellant at serial number 2 below respondent No. 4, who was placed at serial number 1, in the merit list for the purpose of allotment of petrol pump dealership at Malanpur, District Bhind. The appellant/petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition : – “i. The order annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed. ii. The letter of intent issued by respondents in favour of respondent No. 4 may kindly be cancelled and respondents may kindly be directed to produce letter of intent before this Hon’ble Court which may kindly be quashed as the same could not be submitted because of non-supply of the respondents. iii. Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for allocation of petroleum outlet. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, vide advertisement dated 1-8-2010 (Annexure P/3) published in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, invited applications for allotment of retail petroleum outlet dealership at various locations including one at Malanpur, District Bhind. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellant, as well as, respondent No. 4 submitted their applications complete in all respects. After considering the applications and verifying the contents thereof, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 held interview in which appellant, as well as, respondent No. 4 appeared. The appellant was granted 77.11 marks, whereas respondent No. 4 obtained 83.39 marks, resulting into allocation of petroleum dealership in favour of respondent No. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the fact that appellant was more meritorious, respondents-Authorities, for the reasons best known to them, allotted more marks to respondent No. 4 and placed him at S. No. 1, whereas, appellant was placed at S. No. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the fact that appellant was more meritorious, respondents-Authorities, for the reasons best known to them, allotted more marks to respondent No. 4 and placed him at S. No. 1, whereas, appellant was placed at S. No. 2. It is pointed out that respondent No. 4 was allotted 5, 3 and 4 marks (total 12 marks) on account of tied-up volume with prospective customers, project report for realizing sales potential and for experience respectively. It is submitted that 5 marks awarded to respondent No. 4 towards tied-up volume have been wrongly granted to him. However, the writ Court, while admitting the same, has reached at a conclusion that even if those five marks are deducted, then too respondent No. 4 would be having 78.39 marks which would be more than appellant’s tally of 77.11 marks. It is further submitted that 4 marks granted on account of experience and 3 marks for realizing sale potential have been procured by submitting forged documents. The experience certificate dated 1-1-2004 issued to respondent No. 4 for working as a helper during the period 2001 to 2003 is a apparently a forged one, inasmuch as during the said period respondent No. 4 was a regular student of Kiddy’s Corner High School, Gwalior while the certificate shows him to have been working at a Petrol Pump at Guna. It is further submitted that the certificate mentions his name as Dr. Tarun Pratap Singh Bhadoriya, whereas, respondent No. 4 has completed his BDS only in the year 2010. It is submitted that all these aspects have escaped the notice of learned Single Judge. It is further contended that if these four marks of respondent No. 4 are deducted, then appellant would be placed at S. No. 1 in place of respondent No. 4. With the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 5. In response, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4 that marks towards experience have been rightly granted by the Authorities after due verification of the experience certificate. Respondent No. 4 used to work in the concerned Fuel Center as and when he got time from studies. 5. In response, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4 that marks towards experience have been rightly granted by the Authorities after due verification of the experience certificate. Respondent No. 4 used to work in the concerned Fuel Center as and when he got time from studies. It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 has got 83.39 marks while the appellant has got only 77.11 marks and even after deduction of these 4 marks, respondent No. 4 would remain at S. No. 1 of the merit list. As such, no illegality has been committed by the learned writ Court while passing the order impugned and the appeal may be dismissed. 6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 7. A bare perusal of the record reveals that after issuance of advertisement in the year 2010. The order of selection of respondent No. 4 was passed on 18-4-2011. The letter of intent was issued in favour of respondent No. 4 on 22-7-2011. Thereafter, the writ petition has been filed by the appellant only on 28-11-2013. The retail outlet issued to respondent No. 4 started functioning in the year 2012. Therefore, there is a clear cut delay of about 2 years and 6 months from the date of issuance of order of selection on the part of appellant in approaching this Court. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of Virendra Chaudhary vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn., (2009) 1 SCC 297 has held as under : – “12. It is not in dispute that whereas in the advertisement issued in the year 1998 and the advertisement issued on 23-3-2002 in ‘Navbharat Times’, framing of charges in any criminal case was considered to be a disqualification. But in the advertisement issued on 23-3-2002 in ‘The Tribune, and the ‘Daink Tribune’, framing of charges in a criminal case was not considered to be a disqualification. Only conviction in a criminal case was considered to be a disqualification. 13. After the interviews were held and before the letter of intent could be issued, field investigation was carried out. It is during the field investigation, the officials of respondent No. 1 came to learn about the fact that two first information reports had been lodged against respondent No. 5 and in one of them he had also been charge-sheeted. 13. After the interviews were held and before the letter of intent could be issued, field investigation was carried out. It is during the field investigation, the officials of respondent No. 1 came to learn about the fact that two first information reports had been lodged against respondent No. 5 and in one of them he had also been charge-sheeted. It is on that basis, a decision was taken to cancel the empanelment of the fifth respondent on or about 10th March, 2004. Field investigation in respect of the appellant, however, proceeded. Letter of intent had been issued in his favour on 6-5-2004. It is difficult to comprehend that the fifth respondent was not aware of the issuance of the letter of intent to the appellant herein. 14. He, however, filed a writ application only on or about 23rd November, 2004. The High Court may be correct in its view that the purported cancellation of empanelment of the fifth respondent was made on a wrong premise. Though the advertisement published in ‘Navbharat Times’ mentioned ‘framing of charge in a criminal case’ as a disqualification, the advertisement published in ‘The Tribune’ and the ‘Dainik Tribune’ framing of charge in a criminal case was not mentioned as a disqualification. In the application form also, the applicant was not required to furnish any information regarding any framing of charge in a criminal case. It was neither necessary nor possible for the fifth respondent to disclose the fact that two first information reports had been lodged against him and in one of them he had been charged sheeted. The purported disqualification attributed to him, therefore, led to an unjust decision. The High Court, however, in our opinion failed to take into consideration the effect of delay and latches on the part of Respondent 5 in approaching the High Court. A writ remedy is a discretionary remedy. The Court exercises its jurisdiction only upon satisfying itself that it would be equitable to do so. Delay and/or latches, indisputably, are the relevant factors. 15. The Superior Courts, times without number, applied the equitable principles for not granting a relief and/or a limited relief in favour of the applicant in a case of this nature. The Court exercises its jurisdiction only upon satisfying itself that it would be equitable to do so. Delay and/or latches, indisputably, are the relevant factors. 15. The Superior Courts, times without number, applied the equitable principles for not granting a relief and/or a limited relief in favour of the applicant in a case of this nature. While doing so, the Court although not oblivious of the fact that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition but emphasis is laid that it should be filed within a reasonable time. A discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised if the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. 20. The fifth respondent did not acquire an indefeasible right. He was selected by the Oil Selection Board. The said selection was subsequently cancelled and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the appellant in May, 2004. It was not questioned immediately after issuance of the letter of intent in favour of appellant in May, 2004. In his writ application, the fifth respondent did not question the grant of dealership in favour of the appellant. He was afforded an opportunity to amend the writ petition. He filed such an application only after 16 months. However, the writ petition itself was withdrawn and only in October, 2006, the present writ application was filed. From the facts as noticed hereinbefore, there can, therefore, be no doubt that from May, 2004 to October, 2006, the respondent did not take any step to challenge insurance (sic issuance) of the letter of intent granting dealership in favour of appellant. 21. Considering the fact that starting of a business in LPG dealership requires a huge investment and infrastructure therefor is required to be provided and a large number of employees are to be appointed therefor, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in not taking these factors into consideration in proper perspective. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. 22. The appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the instant case, as indicated above, the writ petition has been filed after two and a half years of passing of order of selection of respondent No. 4. 22. The appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the instant case, as indicated above, the writ petition has been filed after two and a half years of passing of order of selection of respondent No. 4. The petrol pump is operational since 2012 and huge investment has flown therein for maintaining heavy infrastructure and employment of large number of employees. Though these facets have not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge, yet, the same have a material bearing on the issue in hand and no equitable relief can be granted to the appellant at this stage, in view of dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Virendra Chaudhary (supra). The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.