2022 (3) TMI 311 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - applicability of time limitation - It was the case of the Appellant before the Learned Single Judge that Respondents never responded to his representations over the years and therefore, the petition was not barred by delay - HELD THAT - There is no explanation forthcoming in the writ petition or before this Court as to why the Appellant waited for nearly 5 decades to approach the Court except for a bald assertion that his several representations were pending with the DDA and his matter for allotment of alternative shop/site was under consideration. The writ petition was thus, clearly barred by delay and laches. The Learned Single Judge has rightly noted that though seemingly, it is an innocuous prayer but clearly it is an attempt on the part of the Appellant to create a fresh cause of action in order to overcome the delay and laches and cannot be countenanced. It is a settled law that repeated representation does not extend limitation nor can be a ground to plead a fresh cause of action so as to overcome delay and laches which in this case is 46 years from the date the shop was demolished and over 11 years from the rejection of representation, with not an iota of explanation enabling this Court to condone the delay. There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the findings of the Learned Single Judge is agreed upon - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment dated 07.12.2021 - Delay and laches in filing writ petition - Allotment of alternative shop - Dismissal of writ petition - Fresh cause of action through representation

Analysis:
The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal against a judgment dismissing the writ petition seeking direction for consideration of his representation for an alternative shop. The appellant claimed his shop was demolished in 1975 without an alternative allotment. The appellant contended delay was not a bar as his representations were pending with the DDA. However, the court found the writ petition filed in 2021, after 46 years, was barred by delay and laches. The court noted the appellant was informed in 2010 that he was not eligible for an alternative shop, rejecting his representation. The court emphasized that the appellant failed to explain the delay of 11 years from the rejection of the representation to filing the writ petition. The court held that seeking a direction to dispose of a 2019 representation was an attempt to create a fresh cause of action to overcome delay, which was impermissible. The court agreed with the Single Judge's findings and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of merit in the case.

This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of delay and laches in filing the writ petition seeking an alternative shop allotment. The court highlighted the significant delay of 46 years from the demolition of the shop in 1975 to the filing of the petition in 2021. The court rejected the appellant's argument that pending representations with the DDA justified the delay, emphasizing that the rejection of his representation in 2010 should have prompted immediate legal action. The court emphasized that seeking a direction to consider a 2019 representation was an impermissible attempt to create a fresh cause of action to overcome the delay, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The judgment also addressed the appellant's contention regarding the rejection of his representation by the DDA in 2010. The court noted that the appellant was informed in 2010 that he was not eligible for an alternative shop, and this information was crucial in determining the timeline for legal action. Despite this rejection, the appellant waited 11 years to file the writ petition, failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court's analysis focused on the significance of the 2010 rejection in determining the cause of action and the subsequent delay in seeking legal recourse, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Furthermore, the judgment delved into the concept of creating a fresh cause of action through repeated representations. The court rejected the appellant's attempt to use a 2019 representation to create a new legal basis for the case, emphasizing that such actions cannot overcome the substantial delay of 46 years from the shop's demolition. The court underscored that seeking a direction to dispose of the 2019 representation was an impermissible strategy to circumvent the delay and laches, reinforcing the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of merit.