JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the decision of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (JIADA), Adityapur Zone communicated to one of the partners of the petitioner, namely, Madhav Shankar Singh through E-mail dated 07.03.2022 by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner’s application for allotment of Industrial Plot Nos. IC-4 & IC-6, near Phase-7, Adityapur Industrial Area (hereinafter referred to as “the said plots”) has been rejected due to non-satisfactory supporting papers of promoter's fund, lack of business or similar experience to run the Unit and non-filing of papers of partnership as per paragraph 12 of the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations, 2016”). Further prayer has been made that after quashing the decision of the respondent No.3 communicated through E-mail dated 07.03.2022, a direction may be issued to the concerned respondents to forthwith consider the petitioner’s application afresh and thereafter to allot the said plots in its favour. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 came out with a Public Notice dated 08.02.2022 inviting application for allotment of Plot Nos. IC-4 & IC-6, measuring an area of 5.82 Acres & 4.77 Acers respectively (total area of 10.59 Acres) from the interested entrepreneurs through online process. The concerned partner of the petitioner submitted its application through E-mail vide Application No. 2000002129 dated 23.02.2022 for allotment of the said plots in “service” category (for establishing educational institution), however, vide an E-mail dated 07.03.2022 sent by the respondent No.3, the said partner of the petitioner was informed that its application was rejected due to lack of satisfactory supporting papers of the promoter's fund, business or similar experience to run the Unit and non-filing of partnership papers as per Paragraph 12 of the Regulations, 2016. 3. It is further submitted that the first reason for rejecting the petitioner’s application has been mentioned as “non-satisfactory supporting papers of promoter's fund” overlooking the fact that all supporting papers as per the JIADA notice such as; project report, KYC, supporting papers of promoter's fund as well as from financial institution (Bank), promoter's fund documents (liquid/property) with respect to Rs.17.5 Crore approx. had already been submitted along with the application. The total valuation of the petitioner's project is Rs.33 Crore approx., out of which its personal contribution is approx. had already been submitted along with the application. The total valuation of the petitioner's project is Rs.33 Crore approx., out of which its personal contribution is approx. Rs.8 Crore and the rest fund will be managed from the Bank loan. 4. It is also submitted that another reason for rejecting the petitioner’s application has been mentioned as “lack of business or similar experience to run the Unit” whereas one of the partners of the petitioner, namely, Madhav Shankar Singh himself is a PHD Degree holder, who has twenty years experience in the concerned field. However, no such criterion was mentioned in the said public notice requiring prior business experience in the concerned field. Moreover, the papers regarding partnership have already been submitted. So far as the condition with respect to filing of partnership papers along with the application in terms with paragraph-12 of the Regulations, 2016 is concerned, the same was not mentioned in the said public notice and in absence thereof, the petitioner was not aware of any such requirement. The said ground of rejection is thus also not tenable in law. It is further submitted that prior to issuance of the public notice dated 08.02.2022, the respondent No.2 has not dealt with the matter properly and due to infirmities in the said public notice as well as laches on the part of the government officials, the bonafide entrepreneurs including the petitioner are not getting a chance to prove themselves even when there is a buzz of Start-up India where the government wants to encourage new entrepreneurs. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in response to the public notice dated 08.02.2022, the respondent No.3 received four applications for allotment of the said plots for which a meeting of the Project Clearance Committee was called on 26.02.2022 as per the Regulations, 2016 for scrutiny of the applications as well as for taking a decision in the said matter. The applications were scrutinized in the said meeting and the applications of the petitioner as well as another applicant, namely, Y. Joyti Luxmi were rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s application was rejected due to lack of satisfactory supporting papers of the promoter's fund and business or similar experience to run the Unit as well as non-filing of the papers with respect to partnership as per Paragraph 12 of the Regulations, 2016. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s application was rejected due to lack of satisfactory supporting papers of the promoter's fund and business or similar experience to run the Unit as well as non-filing of the papers with respect to partnership as per Paragraph 12 of the Regulations, 2016. The said rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide E-mail dated 07.03.2022 by the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 held online auction of the said plots and allotted the same to M/s Sitwanto Devi Mahila Kalyan Sansthan vide the allotment letter dated 10.03.2022 in pursuance of which, the said allotee has already taken physical possession of the said plots on 15.03.2022 and has made substantial investments by making civil construction over the same. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the order of rejection of its application for allotment of the said plots on the ground that the same suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. It is also contended that the action of the concerned authorities lacked transparency as was expected from the State instrumentalities. 7. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner’s application was rejected due to some specified reasons i.e. non-satisfactory supporting papers of promoter’s fund, lack of business or similar experience to run the Unit and non-filing of the papers with respect to partnership as per paragraph 12 of the Regulations, 2016. The said rejection was also communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 through E-mail dated 07.03.2022 and thereafter the said plots were allotted to M/s Sitwanto Devi Mahila Kalyan Sansthan through public auction, the possession of which was also given to the said allotee, who has made substantial construction over the same. The petitioner however kept silence for more than five months even after receipt of the E-mail and thereafter the present writ petition has been filed on 16.08.2022. 8. In the case of Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M. Prabhakar & Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering various earlier judgments on the issue of dealing with the writ petitions filed after delay and laches, has held as under:- “54. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard-and-fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay.” 9. Thus, every case involving delay and laches is to be dealt with in its own fact and circumstance and the Court should exercise sound and proper discretion in taking any decision in the matter. If some right has accrued to others on account of delay in filing the writ petition, such right should not be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. 10. In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. N. Murugesan & Ors. reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “28. We would not dwell deep into the extraordinary and discretionary nature of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This principle is to be extended much more when an element of undue delay, laches and acquiescence is involved. -------- 11. reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “28. We would not dwell deep into the extraordinary and discretionary nature of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This principle is to be extended much more when an element of undue delay, laches and acquiescence is involved. -------- 11. In the case in hand, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay in filing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has though tried to impress upon this Court that no personal communication was made to the petitioner about such rejection, yet the said explanation is not found satisfactory as the application for allotment of the said plots was made by the partner of the petitioner through E-mail and rejection of his application was communicated to him on the same E-mail address. The specific stand of the respondents is that the petitioner’s application was rejected in the meeting of the Project Clearance Committee which was convened on 26.02.2022 as per the Regulations, 2016. The petitioner has raised disputed question of fact in the writ petition after a delay of more than five months, which cannot be entertained by this Court. Even if it is assumed that there is some substance in the contention of the petitioner, the clock cannot be set back to correct the error. There is a well-known maxim “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” which means the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. A person seeking relief under discretionary jurisdiction, should come to the Court with clean hands and within reasonable time. 12. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief under the discretionary writ jurisdiction. 13. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.