Repeated Representations Can't Be Made Basis To Approach Court When There Is No Subsisting Right: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that if a subsisting right has come to an end on account of delay and laches, repeated representations could not be a basis to approach the court for seeking a direction to decide those representations, in absence of any subsisting right.

As per the facts recorded by the Court, an auction for a property was held in 1972. The appellant was the winning bidder but even till 1974, he had submitted only partial amount. In 1995, an officer wrote a letter to the Director, local self-government, Rajasthan apprising of this matter. However, even at this stage, nothing was done by the appellant. In 2010, the appellant received a letter, directing him to vacate the plot. However, the appellant continued to sleep over the matter. Again in 2013, an officer in the local body sent a communication that appellant's case was pending, followed by another letter next year. However, from 2014 till 2024, no prompt remedy was exercised by the appellant.

The appeal was filed by the appellant assailing the order of the Court which dismissed his petition on the grounds of delay and laches. The counsel for the appellant argued that after receiving letter to vacate in 2010, followed by communications in 2013-14, repeated representations were made by the appellant. However, when nothing happened, the writ petition was filed before the Court. Hence, patent illegality was committed is dismissing the writ petition without considering that appellant's case was pending since 1995.

Terming it as a classic example of delay and laches, division bench led by Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava stated that even if there was any subsisting right of the appellant, the same has come to an end due to efflux of time since 1972 till 2024. Furthermore, on the point of repeated representations, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of C. Jacob v Director of Geology & Mining & Another in which the following was observed:

“The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any “decision” on rights and obligations of parties…If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action… The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.”

The case further observed that not every relief representation to the government was to be replied on merits. If the representations related to the matters that have become stale or were barred by limitations, those could be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. Hence, care needed to be exercised while issuing directions for “consideration”. If the representation was stale or did not have anything to show that it related to a live claim, courts should desist from directing “consideration of such claims”.

The Court held that the writ petition was filed by the appellant in a stale matter regarding which no right was subsisting on the date of filing the petition. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Title: Rajendra Gupta v State of Rajasthan, through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing Secretariat, Jaipur

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 126

Click Here To Read/Download Order