9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. - LPA 48/2022 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the writ petition was filed before the Learned Single Judge, seeking a limited relief of a direction to Respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the Appellant dated 11.10.2019 and take a decision thereon, within a time bound manner. Learned Single Judge has erred in not granting the said relief and has erroneously dismissed the writ petition as being barred by delay and laches. 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. 5. Having perused the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge in writ petition being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n alternative shop/site. It cannot thus be contended by the Appellant that his representations had been pending over the years with no response from the departments concerned. (iii) Even assuming for the sake of argument that the representation was wrongly rejected by Respondent No.1, cause of action, if any, had arisen in favour of the Appellant in the year 2010. Even thereafter, the Appellant waited for 11 years before filing the writ petition and has been unable to satisfactorily explain as to what prevented the Appellant from filing a writ petition soon after the representation was rejected. (iv) As far as the prayer in the writ petition for a direction to dispose of the representation dated 11.10.2019 is concerned, in our view, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
