2022 (3) TMI 352 - HC - Indian Laws

Delay in approaching the court of law - Seeking a direction to respondent to allot an alternative shop in lieu of the shop that was occupied by the petitioner on public land which was demolished in the year 1975 - It is contended that repeatedly, petitioner has been writing representations over the years but has not received any response from the respondent - HELD THAT - It is an admitted position that after the shop was demolished in 1975 and the formulation of policy in 1977 and even after petitioner was communicated by letter dated 02.06.2010 that his representation has been considered by the competent authority and his request could not be acceded to, petitioner has not approached any Court of law seeking to enforce rights, if any - this is a case where the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and latches in approaching the court of law. Shop of the petitioner was demolished as far back as 1975 and petitioner has waited for over 46 years in approaching this court. The seemingly innocuous prayer of the petitioner, of seeking a direction to respondents to dispose of his representation, appears to be an attempt, on part of the petitioner, to seek to create a fresh a cause of action so that he can overcome delay and latches - there are no merit in the petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks direction for representation decision on shop demolition in 1975.

Analysis:
The petitioner requested a direction for respondent no. 1 to decide on the representation dated 11.10.2019, seeking an alternative shop due to the demolition of the shop in 1975. The petitioner claimed to have constructed a shop in Meena Bazar, Delhi, in 1971, which was demolished during a demolition drive in 1975-76, without being allotted any alternative shop. The petitioner highlighted a policy framed by DDA in 1977 for allotment of alternative shops to affected merchants but received no response despite repeated representations over the years. Respondent no. 1 had previously informed the petitioner in 2010 that his request could not be acceded to due to no scope for new entrance in the existing plan. Despite this, the petitioner did not approach any court of law to enforce rights, leading to a significant delay of over 46 years.

The court noted the gross delay and latches in the petitioner's approach to seeking legal recourse, considering the demolition occurred in 1975, and no legal action was taken for over four decades. The court observed that the petitioner's prayer for a direction to dispose of the representation seemed to be an attempt to create a fresh cause of action to overcome the delay and latches. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, stating that there was no ground to direct the respondents to decide on the representation. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely legal action and highlighted the lack of justification for the petitioner's prolonged delay in seeking legal redress.