JUDGMENT : 1. Testing correctness of the order passed by learned single Bench dated 7th November, 2019 in Writ-A No.35379 of 2019, instant appeal has been preferred. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the appellant-petitioner, a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 mainly involved in imparting education to the children coming from scheduled castes submitted an application to have grant-in-aid. Acting upon the application, the Director, Department of Social Welfare by a letter dated 29th May, 2014 directed the District Social Welfare Officer to enlist the appellant-petitioner for grant-in-aid as an institution of scheduled castes. After necessary inquiry, a detailed report was also said to be given in this regard by the District Minority Officer, Azamgarh on 16th April, 2015. Being failed to have any response the appellant-petitioner preferred a petition for writ before this Court that came to be disposed of on 27th October, 2016 with a direction to the authority competent to decide the issue relating to grant-in-aid expeditiously. Despite the order aforesaid, no decision was taken by the competent authority. Hence, the appellant-petitioner preferred an application to initiate proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the competent authority. The contempt petition aforesaid came to be disposed of on 25th October, 2017 with a fresh direction to decide claim of the appellant-petitioner within a period of six months. 3. As per the averments contained in the petition for writ, no decision at all was communicated to the appellant-petitioner, which is said to be taken in compliance of the directions given on 25th October, 2017. An application thus was filed under Right to Information Act, 2005 and in pursuance thereto on 12th October, 2018 the appellant-petitioner received copy of a communication dated 13th December, 2017 declining the claim for grant-in-aid. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13th December, 2017 that was received by the appellant on 12th October, 2018, a petition for writ was filed on 12th April, 2019. 4. On filing the writ petition, the Stamp Reporter made a note to the effect that the petition suffers from laches of 589 days. Learned single Judge by the order dated 7th November, 2019 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. The relevant part of the order aforesaid reads as under:- "The stamp reporter has reported a laches of 589 days in filing the present petition. Learned single Judge by the order dated 7th November, 2019 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. The relevant part of the order aforesaid reads as under:- "The stamp reporter has reported a laches of 589 days in filing the present petition. Present petition has been filed with following prayers:- (a) a writ, order, rule or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure no. 15 to the writ petition). (b) any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (c) award the cost of petition in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing attention to paragraph 28 submitted that the petitioners came to know about the impugned order on 22.11.2018 thereafter, they came to this Court after arranging money on 17.10.2019 and the present petition has been filed. Paragraph 28 of the writ petition is quoted as under:- "That the petitioner no.6 was aware with regard to the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 on 22.11.2018, thereafter, petitioner came to this Hon'ble Court for filing the Writ Petition on 17.04.2019 and obtained the photo identification card, but in lack of money, he could not file the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner no. 6 came this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner no. 6 came to this Hon'ble Court before his counsel after arranging the money on 17.10.2019 and thereafter he is filing the same before this Hon'ble Court. In the present case, petitioners are Committee of Management of five institutions and petitioner no. 6 is the alleged manager of all the institutions, therefore, paragraph 28 of the petition does not inspire confidence that five Committee of Management and the alleged manager thereof, took six months' time to collect the money for the purpose of filing of the present petition. Admittedly, even as per allegations of the petitioners, petitioners came to know about the impugned order passed on 13.12.2017 at least by 22.11.2018. Even the photo verification affixed on the affidavit is dated 14.8.2019. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed on the ground of laches in filing the present petition." 5. Admittedly, even as per allegations of the petitioners, petitioners came to know about the impugned order passed on 13.12.2017 at least by 22.11.2018. Even the photo verification affixed on the affidavit is dated 14.8.2019. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed on the ground of laches in filing the present petition." 5. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that there was no laches in filing the petition for writ and, therefore, learned single Bench erred in dismissing the petition for writ without examining merits. Learned counsel also tried to explain the delay in filing the petition for writ. 6. As already stated, learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ on the ground of laches and, therefore, the issue under consideration is that whether any laches exist that may be sufficient to dismiss the petition for writ. 7. At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that the law of no statutory limitation is not applicable for invoking writ jurisdiction. Doctrine of delay and laches are certainly applicable and required to be looked into while entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The objections pertaining to delay, laches, alternative remedy, conduct of the party, etc. are self evolved restrictions and these are to be asserted and examined by the Court and not by its ministerial staff including Stamp Reporters. We failed to understand as to why in the instant matter Stamp Reporter made a note about "laches" in filing the writ petition. Such reporting is absolutely unwarranted being a question that is to be decided by the Court. 8. Though, it is a very fundamental issue but a petition for writ being dismissed on the count of laches, we would like to mention that laches must not be confused with delay in filing writ petition. Delay and laches are two different concepts. Laches certainly possess an essence of delay but every delay does not reflect laches also. Laches is an equitable defence available to a defendant and it should include certain other factors in addition to delay in agitating the equitable relief. While invoking the defence of laches it is to be asserted that the party claiming relief not only slept on its rights but non persuasion on its part has changed the circumstances to the extent that the grant of relief shall not be just and proper. While invoking the defence of laches it is to be asserted that the party claiming relief not only slept on its rights but non persuasion on its part has changed the circumstances to the extent that the grant of relief shall not be just and proper. No such defence at all was taken by any of the party and that could have even not be taken as there was no circumstance that would have created any right in favour of the State or against the appellant-petitioner. 9. Precisely, the issue was regarding entitlement of the appellant-petitioner for grant-in-aid in accordance with the applicable rules. The legal right of the appellant-petitioner was supposed to be decided on the scale of the statute applicable and for examining that there was no hurdle what to talk of laches even on delay as no right otherwise accrued in favour of the respondents. There was also no question of losing the evidence. 10. It would also be appropriate to state that there was no dispute that at the first instance copy of the order dated 13th December, 2017 was supplied to the appellant-petitioner on 22nd November, 2018. The appellant-petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition in the month of April, 2019. Such a period looking to the facts of the case even cannot be treated sufficient to dismiss the writ petition even on the count of delay. 11. Learned single Bench in light of the law discussed above and the factual background noticed, erred in dismissing the petition for writ. The appeal, hence is allowed. The order dated 7th November, 2019 is set aside. The writ petition is restored to its original number and is remitted to learned single Bench for its adjudication on merits. The other just objections shall be available to the respondents while contesting the petition.