Repeated Representation Doesn't Extend Limitation Nor Can Be Ground To Plead Fresh Cause Of Action To Overcome Delay & Laches: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court reiterated that it is a settled law that repeated representation does not extend limitation nor can be a ground to plead a fresh cause of action to overcome delay and laches.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice of D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed an appeal filed with a delay of 46 years from the date the shop in question was demolished and over 11 years from the rejection of representation, without an iota of explanation.

It observed,

"The shop in question was admittedly demolished in the year 1975 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2021, which is after a period of over 46 years. There is no explanation forthcoming in the writ petition or before this Court as to why the Appellant waited for nearly 5 decades to approach the Court."

In the petitioner's case, he constructed a shop in Meena Bazar, opposite Jamia Masjid, in 1971 and paid damages to the Delhi Development Authority up to 1975. Between 1975 to 1976, a demolition drive was conducted, during which the shop of the appellant was demolished, but he was not allotted any alternative shop.

The appellant argued that in 1977, DDA framed a policy for the allotment of alternative places or shops to Motia Khan Steel Merchants. They were evicted from the Motia Khan area as their shops were demolished during the same demolition drive.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petition was filed before the Single Judge seeking a limited relief of a direction to the respondent to consider the appellant's representation and take a decision thereon, within a time-bound manner. The appellant's case was that the Single Judge has erred in not granting the said relief and had erroneously dismissed the writ petition as being barred by delay and laches.

The appellant's case was that Respondents had never responded to his representations over the years, and therefore, the petition was not barred by delay.

The Court dismissed the appeal citing that there is a delay of 46 years between the demolition of the shop and filing of the writ petition. Moreover, the appellant has put forth no reason for this delay, other than a bald assertion that several representations were pending with the DDA and his matter for allotment of the alternative shop was under consideration.

The Court concurred with the findings of the Single Judge and noted that the appellant was duly informed that he was not eligible for an 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, the Court added.

"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," the Court added.

Case Title: Mohd. Suleman v. NDMC & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 131

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order