Delhi High Court
Indian Ports Warehousing Company ... vs Uoi & Anr. on 25 July, 2000
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to give possession of the plot of land measuring 5000 sq. meters at South of Sand Screen Area of Madras Port Trust allotted to it, by the Board of Trustees of Madras Port Trust, vide a Resolution No.95 dated 22.8.1991, for the purpose of erection of tanks for Bulk Liquid Cargo and Molasses.
2. When the petition had came up for admission, the Court had directed the petitioner to explain the delay and laches in institution of the writ petition and to give the circumstances, if any, to justify its entertainment at the belated stage. Petitioner's affidavit in this regard has been filed.
3. Mr. Narsimhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been heard at length. He has narrated the events from the beginning in his attempt to persuade me to entertain this writ petition.
4. It was in August-September, 1991 that respondent No. 2 had approved the proposal for allotment of land to the petitioner. The said proposal was, however, subject to compliance of all regulations and approvals required by the statutory authorities and subject to sanction by the Government of India. On 22.2.1991, a notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, which prohibited the putting up structures, storage tanks etc., within 500 meters of High Tide Line. As a result of the foregoing, the proposal for allotment of land to the petitioner did not fructify.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a party M/s. Suraj Agro Product was allotted land within 500 sq. meters of the High Tide Line within the years 1993-94. He further argues that in August, 1995, the Madras Port Trust invited tenders for allotment of land within 500 meters. Petitioner duly participated in the tender. However, these tenders were cancelled on the ground that the Madras Port Trust itself wanted to establish the facility. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not permissible at law for the Madras Port Trust to establish the facility itself. He submits that petitioner made a representation in April, 1998 to consider his request for allotment, but this was not entertained. He submits that it was in these circumstances that in fact Ministry of Surface Transport (Ports Wing) desired the Madras Port Trust to consider the request of the petitioner. As such the delay in institution of the writ petition has to be reckoned only after a lapse of reasonable period from 1998, when the Central Government had requested the Madras Port Trust to consider the request of the petitioner. I am unable to accept these submissions.
6. Looking at the substance of the matter, it is clear from the averments in the petition, that the petitioner's cause of action really accrued on 6.3.1993, when the petitioner was communicated that the proposal for allotment cannot be granted on account of the embargo of 500 meters as per the Central Government Notification. Once this prohibition was communicated to the petitioner, it cannot be really said that the cause of action would continue or arise on a subsequent date when the Central Government may have in any innocuous manner asked the Madras Port Trust to consider the request of the petitioner. Any such communication has to be interpreted as considering the request in accordance with the Regulations and Notifications. I am not persuaded to entertain this petition after delay of nearly 6 years. There is no reasonable explanation for this delay. Petitioner cannot take advantage of belated representation made after five years of rejection of his proposal for allotment in 1993.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this is not a fit case to be entertained at this stage in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.
