dissenting.
I cannot accept the conclusion reached by the majority of the Court that the instant matter is controlled by our prior decision in Berardocco v. Colden, 469 Pa. 452, 366 A.2d 574 (1976). In my view, relator John B. Leedom has failed to act expeditiously in instituting this action in quo warranto for his commission as district justice and should be barred from recovery in this belated action by the doctrine of laches.
The pertinent facts of the instant litigation are as follows: Relator and respondent, William Thomas, filed nominating petitions for the primary election of May 20, 1975, for the office of district justice. Edward Dougherty, the incumbent also filed nominating petitions but died on April 23, 1975. In the subsequent primary election both Leedom and Thomas were nominated as the candidates for the municipal election by their respective parties.
On June 9, 1975, respondent was nominated by the Governor to fill the vacancy for the office of district justice for District 7-3-01 which became vacant upon the death of Dougherty. The Senate confirmed the nomination on June 17, 1975.1 Subsequently, Thomas was sworn into office to serve in the post of district justice until the entry of the order in this case on April 22, 1977. The Bucks County Board of Elections declined to remove the position from the ballot in the November 5, 1975 municipal election and Leedom was elected to that *205office for a six-year term purportedly to commence January 5, 1976.2 No action was taken on behalf of relator until February 24,1977, when this Court was requested to remove Thomas from office and to permit Leedom to serve as district justice until the first Monday of January, 1982.
At first blush, it would appear that Berardocco v. Colden, supra, governs the instant matter. There, both relator and respondent were also candidates for the office of district judge. On April 14, 1975, during the course of the primary campaign, the incumbent resigned his commission and the Governor nominated respondent Colden to fill the vacant office for a term ending the first Monday of January, 1978. Following confirmation by the Senate, Colden assumed the office of district justice on June 24, 1975. That same date, Berardocco filed an action in quo warranto seeking to have the appointment declared invalid. We dismissed that complaint without prejudice on the ground that it was premature.
As in the instant matter, relator was elected in the November municipal election to a six-year-term commencing January 5, 1976. When Berardocco failed to receive his commission by that date he immediately instituted a second action in quo warranto. Subsequently, this Court held that relator was entitled to his elective office.
Although in some respects similar, I believe the instant action presents separate and distinct considerations *206which compel a different conclusion.3 In contrast to Berardocco’s prompt response, relator Leedom procrastinated over one year after his elective term was scheduled to begin before asserting his claim. In my view that delay is fatal to his cause under the doctrine of laches.
As defined by this Court:
Laches is an equitable doctrine, and its purpose is for the repose of title, claims and demands for peace and order in society. See, St. Peter’s Evan. Luth. Ch. v. Kleinfelter, 96 Pa.Super. 146 (1929). The question of its application does not depend upon the fact that a certain definite time has elapsed since the cause of action accrued, but rather whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the complaining party or parties are chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to institute or prosecute the claim: Lutherland, Inc. v. Dahlen, 357 Pa. 143, 53 A.2d 143 (1947).
Gabster v. Mesaros, 422 Pa. 116, 119-120, 220 A.2d 639, 641 (1966).
See also Mulholland v. Pittsburgh National Bank, 405 Pa. 268, 174 A.2d 861 (1961); Heinly v. Keck, 192 Pa.Super. 537, 161 A.2d 655 (1960). The uncontradicted facts of this case establish that more than thirteen months elapsed from the date on which Leedom’s elected term was to commence until this action was instituted on his behalf. This is so despite Leedom’s admission that since the latter part of 1975 he was aware of a similar claim being raised in the Berardocco case. Relator asserts that he was awaiting our ruling in that matter before commencing his own suit.4 I believe it was ineum*207bent upon relator to present his argument to the proper tribunal at the earliest possible time rather than permitting another individual to assume the office without protest, serve in that position for more than a year and then attempt to seek relief under the stale claim.
The majority correctly points out that a party asserting laches must demonstrate prejudice resulting from the lapse of time. My quarrel with the majority’s reasoning is that it confines the inquiry to the possible prejudice of respondent and ignores the prejudice to the citizens who reside within this magisterial district. Cf. Commonwealth ex rel. Storb v. Schroll, 398 Pa. 354, 157 A.2d 179 (1960). In matters affecting the operations of government the right of the public must transcend the rights of those seeking office. It is a fundamental goal of this Court to obtain an ordered and effective judicial system at every level in this Commonwealth. Today’s result needlessly frustrates that end. To now remove the present district justice and permit Leedom to assume the position, totally disrupts the judicial process in the district in question. During the past 13 months respondent has faithfully and effectively discharged the duties of that office. The people of the district have come to know and rely upon him to serve their needs. Undoubtedly, many matters are presently pending before that court, thus the continuity of the work flow will be needlessly disturbed. There will be in all probability, instances where pending matters will be unduly delayed, possibly to the irreparable prejudice of the litigants. While I agree with the rule announced in our decision in Berardocco, its application here is unwarranted in view of the gross intrusion upon the orderly administration of *208justice which will ensue because of relator’s lack of due diligence.
I also am not willing to dismiss as cavalierly as the majority has seen fit, the claim that the events which preceded the November, 1976 election in effect deprived a segment of the community of a viable candidate for this office. The majority attempts to discount this claim because respondent was not sworn into office until after the November election of 1976. What the majority ignores is that between the primary election and the general election the Governor had initiated the appointing process which, if legally valid, would have in fact nullified the pending election process. While there was some problem in the confirmation of respondent, see note 1, supra, no challenge was raised to the power of the Governor to appoint for a two-year term during the period between the primary election and the general election. In such a posture it would not have been unreasonable for a segment of the community who supported respondent’s candidacy to have relied on the Governor’s power of appointment and to have concluded that the only contingency attached to Thomas’ gaining the office for the stated term was an effective Senate confirmation.
In this context it is significant that in Berardocco the relator initially instituted his action in the month of June preceding the November election. While it is true that this Court declined to reach the merits of the question until after the election, it was nevertheless important to the decision in that case that all parties were put on notice of a cloud over the validity of such an appointment and, therefore, should have been fully cognizant of the possible significance of the forthcoming election. In contrast, in the instant case, there was no reason for the citizens of this district to have questioned the validity of the appointive process.5 Under these circumstances it cannot be said that it would have been unreasonable for *209respondent’s supporters to have viewed the elective process as a nullity and to have foregone further participation therein.
I fail to perceive how a court, which has on prior occasions, exhibited serious concern over the possibility that a major political party might be deprived of a candidate for an office in a general election, can here display such an insensitivity to that problem by rendering a decision which creates that result. Cf. Chalfin v. Specter, 426 Pa. 464, 233 A.2d 562 (1967). In Chalfin, Mr. Specter who was then serving as the elected District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia ran for the Republican nomination for the office of Mayor of that City without first resigning from the office of District Attorney as required by the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. The decision in that cause was handed down between the primary and the general elections. The members of the Court could not agree upon an opinion but at least four members decided that Mr. Specter as District Attorney was a city officer and thus covered by the provisions of the Charter. Section 10-107(5) of the Charter prohibited in the clearest terms a city officer from being “a candidate for nomination or election to any public office unless he shall have first resigned from his then office
. . . ”. Subsequent provisions of the Charter provided severe penalties against any such officer who violated its terms,6 including the right to declare the offender disqualified for the office he sought and to remove him from the office he was then holding. This Court declined to impose any sanction against Mr. Specter for this blatant violation. In explaining his reason for not urging the imposition of a sanction, the late Mr. Chief Justice BELL in his concurring opinion in Chalfin, posed the following question:
“Under these very unusual facts and circumstances, are the people of Philadelphia to be denied the right to *210vote for a candidate for Mayor on one of the two major tickets, i. e. the Republican ticket, . . .” Id. at 472, 233 A.2d at 566.
At a later point in his opinion he answered this rhetorical question as follows:
“Under these exceptionally unusual circumstances, I believe . . . Specter should be permitted to be a candidate for Mayor of Philadelphia without resigning his office as District Attorney. To hold otherwise, under all the very unusual facts and circumstances and exigencies hereinabove set forth, would be a gross miscarriage of Justice!” 7 Id. at 477, 233 A.2d at 568. (Emphasis added).
In my judgment the circumstances are more compelling in the case at bar for refusing relief to relator then they were in the Chalfin case for declining to take action against Mr. Specter for the breach of the Charter provision.
Moreover, it necessarily follows that if Leedom were entitled to hold the office from January 5, 1976, he is equally entitled to receive the salary from that date. Since the question of back pay is not properly before this Court in an action in quo warranto, Meyer v. Strouse, 422 Pa. 136, 221 A.2d 191 (1966), there is nothing to preclude a subsequent demand on the part of relator, and thus the people of this Commonwealth are left exposed to *211the possibility of being required to pay two men for the services rendered by one.8
Finally, the appropriateness of the application of the doctrine of laches under these facts is emphasized by the fact that the appointive term would have expired on the first Monday of January, 1978. The election process for the municipal election to be held in November, 1977 has already begun and both relator and respondent have filed their respective nominating petitions. If the situation had been left undisturbed, the people of the district in question would have had an opportunity to select, in a viable election, their choice to fill the new six-year-term. In my judgment such an approach would have better served the ends of justice.
For the stated reasons, I would deny the Writ.
. The record also indicates that on June 24, 1975, the Senate passed a resolution to “recall for further consideration its communication notifying the Governor of this confirmation”. The parties in their briefs did not discuss the legal efficacy, if any, of this resolution nor has the majority ventured an assessment of the significance of this legislative action. On December 16, 1975, respondent was issued two commissions, one for the original magisterial district (7-3-01) and the second for the newly designated magisterial district (7-2-01). The terms of both commissions issued to Thomas were to extend until the first Monday of January, 1978.
. Respondent sets forth in his counter-statement of the case that the Bucks County Board of Elections held a hearing in September of 1975 to decide whether or not this office should have been removed from the ballot for the municipal election of November, 1975. Respondent further asserts that he did not receive notice of this.hearing and was not aware that it was being held. He did some time thereafter learn of the fact that the hearing had been held and that relator was present. Since these statements were not challenged by relator either by way of a supplemental brief or at argument before this Court, I accept them as true for purposes of this case.
. It is clear that when exceptional or unusual circumstances are presented in an action in quo warranto this Court may resolve the matter under its equity powers. See Chalfin v. Specter, 426 Pa. 464, 474, 233 A.2d 562, 566 (1967). I believe this case presents such a situation.
. I do not share the belief that a party who sits idly by to await the outcome of a lawsuit to which he is a stranger, is necessarily *207entitled to the benefit of a favorable result particularly where his tardiness in instituting an action on his own behalf has substantially and adversely affected the rights of others. Further, even though it is conceded that relator learned of our decision in Berardocco v. Colden, 469 Pa. 452, 366 A.2d 574 (1976) on January 24, 1977, he did not commence this action in quo warranto until an additional 31 days had passed.
. There was no claim in Berardocco that the appointment had caused either of the parties to withdraw from active campaigning.
. See Sections 10-107(6) and 10-109.
. The late Mr. Chief Justice BELL seems to have exaggerated the exigencies of the situation since the Court could have given Mr. Specter the option to resign as District Attorney if he had wished to continue his quest for the office of Mayor or in the alternative have permitted him to retain the office he then held and to have withdrawn from the race for Mayor. Chalfin v. Specter, supra at 499, 233 A.2d at 579 (Eagen, J., dissenting opinion). The Election Code provides for the contingency that a candidate who has been nominated for the office may withdraw his candidacy for office in the General Election. Act of August 13, 1963, P.L. 707, § 13, as amended, 25 P.S. § 2938 (Supp.1976-77).
. The majority attempts to gloss over this possibility by referring in a footnote to the statement of counsel, during argument, that his client was not interested in seeking back pay. Not only is this dehors the record, there is also no indication that counsel was authorized by his client to make such a representation.