Delay / Laches – Belated representation before appropriate authority – Delayed writ petition – Effect of – Held: Mere representation before the authority does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time – If it is found that a writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation before the authority and / or directing the authority to decide the representation – Such order should not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently (by the authority) has given a fresh cause of action – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.226.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.226 – Belated writ petition u/Art. 226, arising out of contract between the parties – Relief sought in the form of specific performance of the contract – Maintainability of the writ petition – Held: On facts, no writ u/Art.226 shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation – Limitation.
Dismissing the SLP, the Court
HELD:1.1. In the instant case, by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as such the petitioner prayed for a specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner made a representation for allotment of 10% plot as per Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 in the year 2010, i.e., after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such if the suit would have been filed for specific performance, the same would have been barred by limitation. Despite the above, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court and prayed for specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001, which was also filed after a period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such when the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2011 which was also barred by delay and laches, the High Court ought not to have entertained the same. Instead, the High Court entertained the said writ petition and directed the NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously and it gave the fresh blood to the litigation, which otherwise was barred by delay and laches. NOIDA however rejected the said representation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition which was rightly dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. [Paras 4, 7][732-B-E; 733-D]
1.2. There are number of orders passed by the High Courts directing the authorities to decide the representation though the representations are made belatedly and thereafter when a decision is taken on such representation, thereafter it can be said on behalf of the petitioner that the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Therefore, when such orders are passed by the High Courts either relegating the petitioner to make a representation and/or directing the appropriate authority to decide the representation, the High Courts have to consider whether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same is barred by laches and/or not, so that in future the person who has approached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Even in a case where earlier representation is rejected, the High Court shall decide the matter on merits. [Para 4][732-F-H; 733-A]
2. Mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action. [Para 5] [733-A-C]
3. Even otherwise on merits also, the High Court by the impugned judgment has rightly refused to grant any relief which as such was in the form of specific performance of the contract. No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. [Para 6][733-D-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.