Delhi Tamil Education Society vs Directorate Of Education & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3547 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment: 26.07.2011


+                    W.P.(C) No.915/2007

DELHI TAMIL EDUCATION SOCIETY         ........... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. G. Umapathy and
                           Ms. Sudha Umapathy,
                           Advocates.

             Versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & OTHERS ..........Respondents
                  Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
                           for respondent No. 1
                           Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for
                           respondent No. 2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

      1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
         see the judgment?

      2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                Yes

      3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                           Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The petitioner Delhi Tamil Education Society is a registered

society; it is a linguistic minority.

(i) The petitioner society had applied to respondent No. 1

(Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi) for

allotment of land for the establishment of a minority school in

Mayur Vihar.

(ii) Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 12.11.1982 directed the

petitioner to submit its application on prescribed form;

essentiality certificate (EC) under Rule 44 of the Delhi Education

Rules, 1973 was also sought.

(iii) Vide letter dated 18.11.1982 the plaintiff society applied in

the prescribed format.

(iv) On 19.01.1984, respondent No. 1 requested the petitioner to

furnish its application in a triplicate form.

(v) On 17.02.1984, the prescribed application in triplicate was

furnished to respondent No. 1.

(vi) On 16.05.1984, respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner

that their case for allotment has been forwarded to respondent

No. 2 (Delhi Development Authority/DDA).

(vii) Thereafter communications dated 29.04.1992 and

18.06.1992 have been mentioned in the body of the petition but

admittedly these letters have not been placed on record. Record

thus emanating is that after 16.05.1984 up to 03.07.2000, there

was no correspondence between the petitioner and either

respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2.

(viii) Thereafter vide letter dated 03.07.2000, respondent No. 2

informed the petitioner that his case for allotment of land would

be considered subject to the following formalities; details of which

have been mentioned in this letter dated 03.07.2000. This was in

response to the letter of the petitioner dated 15.04.2000.

(ix) On 23.02.2001, respondent No. 1 requested the petitioner to

complete all formalities; relevant would it be to state that this

letter dated 23.02.2001 makes reference for allotment of land for

an open school at Rohini. It is not related to the allotment of land

at Mayur Vihar; this letter is out of context. Document appears to

have been filed only to mislead the Court.

(x) On 22.05.2001, respondent No. 1 through the Assistant

Director of Education wrote to the DDA informing him that there

is no need for a re-sponsorship of allotment of land and since the

society is a minority, there is also no need to lay emphasis for the

furnishing of an EC. This letter has been written by the Assistant

Director of Education on behalf of respondent No. 1.

(xi) On 04.03.2002, respondent No. 2 requested the petitioner

society to furnish its Memorandum and the Aims and Objectives of

its Society.

(xii) On 28.08.2002, respondent No. 2 wrote to the petitioner

society detailing the terms and conditions for allotment of land to

the petitioner on the terms and conditions contained therein

asking them to make payments.

(xiii) On 18.12.2002, respondent No. 2 in supersession of its

earlier letter dated 28.08.2002 issued a letter of allotment to the

petitioner demanding a sum of Rs.19,66,295/- with the condition

that the land will be used for the construction of building within

two years from the date of its possession.

(xiv) On 20.10.2002, the petitioner wrote to the DDA

acknowledging the allotment of land in their favour.

(xv) On 13.01.2003, the petitioner society sought a 'No objection

certificate' from respondent No. 2 for the grant of a loan.

(xvi) On 27.01.2003, the petitioner society paid a sum of

Rs.19,66,295/- seeking allotment of the plot in their favour with a

request to pursue the construction thereupon.

(xvii) On 17.04.2003, the petitioner requested respondent No. 2

for the handing over the possession of land.

(xviii) On 03.09.2003, a reminder was sent by the petitioner to

respondent No. 2.

(xix) On 07.01.2004, the petitioner society sought the

intervention of the Lt. Governor seeking a direction to respondent

No. 2 to deliver the possession of the plot to the petitioner.

(xx) On 19.07.2004, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner

society to furnish the resolution of the society authorizing the

person who would be taking possession of the plot.

(xxi) On 12.10.2004, respondent No. 2 requested the petitioner to

furnish the attested photographs of the person who would take

possession of the plot.

(xxii) On 13.04.2005, respondent No. 2 wrote to respondent No. 1

raising an issue as to whether an existing school is to be shifted at

Mayur Vihar or as to whether a new school is to be opened at

Mayur Vihar.

(xxiii) On 07.09.2005, respondent No. 1 informed respondent No. 2

not to treat the sponsorship of the petitioner dated 16.05.1984 as

valid and not to allot any land to the petitioner.

(xxiv) On 12.01.2006, a show cause notice was issued by

respondent No. 2 to the petitioner as to why the allotment of land

of two acres made in favour of the petitioner society be not

cancelled.

2 Present petition had been filed challenging the show cause

notice issued by respondent No. 2 dated 12.01.2006 as also the

communication dated 07.09.2005, 22.11.2005 and 03.01.2007

issued by respondent No. 1 wherein in the first communication

respondent No. 1 had written to respondent No. 2 informing them

not to treat sponsorship letter dated 16.05.1984 granted to the

petitioner society as valid; the subsequent communication of

22.11.2005 is a letter written by respondent No. 1 to respondent

No.2; in the communication dated 03.01.2007 it has been

reiterated by respondent No. 1 that the request of the petitioner

seeking allotment of land for establishing a school at Mayur Vihar

had been rejected.

3 These aforenoted three letters dated 07.09.2005,

22.11.2005 and 03.01.2007 sent by respondent No. 1 are the

subject matter of challenge in this petition as also the show cause

notice dated 12.01.2006 issued by respondent No. 2.

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the

sponsorship having first been granted in favour of the petitioner

society and thereafter several communications having been

addressed by the petitioner to both respondent No. 1 and

respondent No. 2; respondent No. 2 even having been accepted

the amount of Rs.19,66,295/-, it does not now lie in their mouth to

cancel the allotment which was made in favour of the petitioner

society in 1984.

5 In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it

has been contended that the petitioner has woken up very late in

the day. The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2007

challenging the sponsorship which has been granted in his favour

in 1984; it is pointed out that as per the available record there

was no aided school at the relevant time in Mayur Vihar and nor

was there any case of shifting of that school in that area; after this

long gap of 20 years, the prayer made by the petitioner has

become time barred; it is pointed out that the minutes of Land

Allotment Committee dated 09.06.1994 clearly show that the

sponsorship letters for allotment of land for educational societies

are valid only for a period of three years with a further direction

that the DDA must also ensure that the society has a valid EC in

their favour; none of these conditions had been adhered to;

allotment letter dated 09.06.1984 stood cancelled after a lapse of

three years; petition is not maintainable.

6 On behalf of respondent No. 2, it is submitted that the show

cause notice issued by the DDA dated 12.01.2006 is the subject

matter of challenge; this is premature. Reliance has been placed

upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440

Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and

Another to support his submission that a show cause notice should

not be entertained in a writ petition; petitioner should be directed

to respond to the notice; scope of judicial review on a show cause

notice is limited. It is submitted that on this ground alone, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the Director of

Education vide their letter dated 22.11.2005 had informed the

DDA not to treat the sponsorship letter dated 16.05.1984 of the

society as valid; in these circumstances, there is little option left

with the DDA but to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner

asking him to show cause as to why the allotment be not

cancelled.

7 Record shows that the petitioner has actually slept over his

right for more than 16 years. Admittedly the first letter issued by

respondent No. 1 to the petitioner society was dated 16.05.1984

sponsoring the case of the petitioner for allotment of a plot for a

senior secondary school in Mayur Vihar. Thereafter the petition its

shows that right up to 03.07.2000, there was not a single

communication exchanged between the petitioner and the

respondents i.e. either respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 for

the allotment of this land. There is no explanation for the same.

The petitioner has mentioned two letters dated 29.04.1992 and

18.06.1992 in his petition but these letters are not on record; the

contention of the petitioner that he had on 14.10.1992 submitted

his application in the prescribed format is not borne out. For the

first time on 03.07.2000, the petitioner was informed by

respondent No. 2 that his case will be considered after the initial

formalities have been complied with. This letter of respondent No.

2 dated 03.07.2000 makes a reference to the letter of the

petitioner dated 15.04.2000; admittedly prior to 15.04.2000, the

petitioner had never pursued this case after the initial proposed

allotment in his favour on 16.05.1984. This letter of 15.04.2000

(not on record) is also allegedly issued by the petitioner to

respondent No. 2; petitioner has not corresponded with

respondent No. 1 at all although the sponsorship letter of

16.05.1984 had been addressed by respondent No. 1 to the

petitioner. In fact the process appears to have been re-started

only on this letter of 03.07.2000 sent by respondent No. 2 to the

petitioner. This conduct of the petitioner is clearly negligent and

lackadaisical; there is no explanation for this long intervening gap

when he slept over the rights which if any he had accrued in his

favour; this gap of 16 years remains unexplained.

8 The minutes dated 09.06.1999 of the Government of NCT of

Delhi of Land Allotment Committee (LAC) relate to the allotment

of land for educational societies. These minutes clearly state that

recommendations of the LAC cannot be open ended; it was

decided that all the sponsorship letters must clearly mention that

the sponsorship is valid only for three years and the DDA must

ensure that the society has a valid EC at the time of possession.

Admittedly the communication dated 03.07.2000 issued by

respondent No. 2 was with reference to the letter of the petitioner

dated 15.04.2000 when he for the first time corresponded with

respondent No. 2 on his allotment of 16.05.1984. The sponsorship

letter of the petitioner dated 16.05.1984 had lapsed after the

period of three years i.e. by 1987; this is clear from the minutes of

the LAC dated 09.06.1999; the petitioner had woken up from his

slumber only in April, 2000 which is clear from the letter of

respondent No. 2 dated 03.07.2000. There is no doubt that

respondent No. 2 in this intervening period had asked the

petitioner to furnish documents and had also made a demand of

Rs.19,66,295/- upon the petitioner in terms of its letter dated

18.12.2002 which amount has since been deposited but this was

because of the communication gap between respondent No. 1 and

respondent No. 2; on 07.09.2005, respondent No. 1 informed

respondent No. 2 not to treat the sponsorship letter of 16.05.1984

as valid and no allotment of land be granted to the petitioner on

the basis of the said letter. Admittedly the petitioner society also

did not have any EC on the relevant date.

9 A party who comes to the Court seeking a discretionary

relief by way of a writ jurisdiction must establish that there has

been no lapse on the part of the litigating party. The long delay of

16 years in exchanging the first correspondence with the

respondent after the first sponsorship letter dated 16.05.1984 and

the writ petition having been preferred even thereafter i.e. in the

year 2007 i.e. after more than two decades remains unexplained;

no correspondence admittedly ensued between the parties from

1984 to 15.04.2000 when for the first time the petitioner wrote to

respondent No. 2.

10 In fact all correspondences of the petitioner were addressed

to respondent No. 2. He has never corresponded with respondent

No. 1 although the sponsorship letter of 16.05.1984 was

addressed by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. There is only one

solitary communication of 22.05.2001 inter-se respondent No. 1 &

respondent No. 2; this was admittedly after a period of 17 years

from the date of the sponsorship letter of 16.05.1984; case of the

petitioner was admittedly sponsored in 1984; this letter cannot be

treated as open for all years to follow.

11 The demand-cum-allotment letter dated 18.12.2002 issued

to the petitioner society demanding a sum of Rs.19,66,295/-

(which amount has since been deposited) was on a wrong

premise. The sponsorship letter dated 16.05.1984 not being an

open ended for all times; respondent No. 1 had informed

respondent No. 2 vide its communication dated 07.09.2005 not to

treat the sponsorship letter of the petitioner as valid; pursuant

thereto the show cause notice dated 12.01.2006 was sent to the

petitioner asking him to show cause as to why his allotment be not

cancelled.

12 In 86 (2000) DLT 505 Smt. Sundari Bala Vs. Lt. Governor

and others, a Bench of this Court had held that where the writ

petitioner was guilty of laches or undue delay in approaching the

High Court, the principle of laches or undue delay disentitled the

writ petitioner for discretionary relief under Article 226 of the

Constitution. This was also reiterated in the case of Jaswant Kaur

Vs. Ltd. Governor 1997 (40) DRJ 703. The Apex Court in Star Wire

(India) Ltd. VS. State of Haryana (1996) II SCC 698 has held that

laches close the gates of the courts for a person who approaches

the Court belatedly; such a petitioner is disentitled for any

discretionary hearing or relief.

13 Admittedly no reply has been sent to this show cause notice.

The petitioner has straightway rushed to the Court. The Apex

Court in the case of Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (Supra) has

condemned such an act; the Apex Court has held that a writ

petition assailing a show cause notice should not be entertained

easily as a matter of routine; instead of responding to the show

cause notice where the petitioner directly approaches the Court,

such proceedings should be condemned and nipped in the bud.

14 In this background, the petitioner having not explained the

unreasonable delay in not having followed up on the sponsorship

letter dated 16.05.1984 right up to the year 2000 which was the

first communication addressed by him to respondent No. 2 and

thereafter the present writ petition having been filed in 2007,

such a litigant who has slumbered over his right deserves no

discretionary relief in his favour.

15    Dismissed.



                                      INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 26, 2011
a