2022 (3) TMI 311 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses appeal due to delay in filing writ petition for shop allotment after shop demolition.

The court dismissed the appeal in a case involving delay and laches in filing a writ petition seeking an alternative shop allotment. The appellant's ... Delay and laches - cause of action - repeated representations do not extend limitation - condonation of delay - limitation in writ jurisdictionDelay and laches - cause of action - repeated representations do not extend limitation - Whether the writ petition seeking direction to consider representations is maintainable despite a delay of several decades and earlier communication rejecting the claim - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted the finding that the shop was demolished in 1975 and the writ petition was filed in 2021, a delay of over 46 years, without any satisfactory explanation for waiting nearly five decades to approach the Court. The Court relied on the letter dated 02.06.2010 in which Respondent No.1 informed the appellant that there was no scope for new entrants and that the request for an alternative site could not be acceded to; this communication defeated the appellant's plea that representations had been pending without response. The Court held that, at the latest, a cause of action arose in 2010 when the representation was rejected, yet the appellant waited another 11 years before filing the writ petition and failed to explain the inordinate delay. The Court further held that the subsequent representation dated 11.10.2019 and the prayer for disposal of that representation could not be used to create a fresh cause of action or to circumvent the bar of delay and laches, applying the settled principle that repeated representations do not extend limitation nor revive an extinguished cause of action. Consequently, the writ petition was properly held to be barred by delay and laches and not amenable to condonation on the material before the Court. [Paras 5, 6, 7]Writ petition barred by delay and laches; earlier communication of rejection (02.06.2010) fixed the cause of action and subsequent representations could not revive it.Final Conclusion: The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed; the High Court concurs with the Single Judge that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches and that the appeal lacks merit. 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 representationAnalysis: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.