Writ jurisdiction cannot enforce stale contractual promises; a belated representation does not create a fresh cause of action.

A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable where the relief sought was in substance specific performance of a contractual promise for allotment of land. The proper remedy lay in a civil suit, and on the stated facts even that remedy would have been time-barred. The claim was also rejected as stale because it was raised nearly a decade after execution of the sale deed and the belated writ was filed after further delay. A subsequent representation, or its rejection, did not extend limitation, cure laches, or create a fresh cause of action. The Court declined relief and upheld dismissal of the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition seeking enforcement of a contractual promise for allotment of land was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the challenge was barred by delay and laches, and whether a subsequent representation or its rejection created a fresh cause of action.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition seeking enforcement of a contractual promise for allotment of land was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The relief sought was in substance specific performance of Clause 12 of the sale deed. Such enforcement of a contractual obligation, particularly after a long lapse of time, was not a fit subject for writ jurisdiction. The proper remedy lay in a civil action for specific performance, and even that remedy would have been barred by limitation on the facts.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for specific performance of the contract, and the refusal of relief was correct.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge was barred by delay and laches, and whether a subsequent representation or its rejection created a fresh cause of action.

Analysis: The claim was asserted nearly a decade after execution of the sale deed, and the writ petition itself was filed after a still longer delay. Mere filing of a belated representation does not extend limitation or cure laches. A belated representation or its rejection cannot revive an otherwise stale claim or generate a fresh cause of action where the original approach itself was delayed beyond reasonable time.

Conclusion: The challenge was barred by delay and laches, and no fresh cause of action arose from the representation or its rejection.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to grant relief and upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, treating the claim as stale, non-maintainable in writ jurisdiction, and incapable of being revived through a later representation.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not enforce a stale contractual claim by way of specific performance, and a belated representation does not create a fresh cause of action or overcome delay and laches.

---