Chunnu vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 5659 Del

3
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 9026/2011

       CHUNNU                                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr. S.C. Sagar, Advocate.

                           versus

       DELHI URBAN SHELTER
       IMPROVEMENT BOARD                    ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Nishant Prateek, Advocate for
                             Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate.

%                                   Date of Decision :11th November , 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                           JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to MCD to allot an alternative plot/flat in lieu of property demolished under a relocation scheme. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to pay damages of Rs.10 lacs for mental agony suffered by the petitioner for the last more than thirty-five years.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground of laches as the writ petition has been filed after thirty-five years of the cause of action having arisen.

3. Learned counsel for respondent states that admittedly petitioner's mother was one of the thirty people evicted under a Resettlement Programme and the land admeasuring 25 sq. yds. had been allotted to her in 1976 itself, but she had refused to accept the same.

4. Learned counsel for respondent also points out that the Allotment Committee in its meeting on 30th October, 1995 had not found her eligible for allotment of a Slum Re-housing Flat.

5. However, learned counsel for petitioner states that as the petitioner's repeated representations were being entertained the rule of laches would not apply. In this connection, he refers to the notings of the various Committees of the Delhi Development Authority itself. He also points out that as there was delay in obtaining the succession certificate, petitioner could not approach the Court immediately.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bansati Prasad vs. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board and Others, Civil Appeal No.3564/2009, wherein it has been held that the issue of laches in each case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances after keeping in view the conduct of the parties and the prejudice that is likely to be caused to the opposite party or to the general public.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed in the year 2011 for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of a property demolished in 1976 is barred by laches. The decision to reject the petitioner's request was communicated to petitioner on 12th July, 1996 and the succession certificate was also granted in petitioner's favour on 16th December, 2003. Therefore, filing of the

present writ petition in 2011 only on the ground that on a fresh representation filed by the petitioner, an internal noting had been made in his favour is of no consequence. It is pertinent to mention that some of the internal notings of the department are also against the petitioner.

8. The Supreme Court with regard to delay and laches in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Bhailal Bhai & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 1006 has held, "........Learned Counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art.226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226 can be measured. This Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable......"

9. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 394 has held "It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallised rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits."

10. This Court is further of the view that filing of repeated representations does not extend the period to file the writ petition. The Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar vs. Department of Atomic Energy and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 525 has held as under:-

"15. Merely because the case of the appellant was forwarded by the Department vide its Letter dated 27-1-2007 for favourable consideration, would not vest any right in the petitioner and can hardly be of any material consequence. If an employee keeps making representation after representation which are consistently rejected then the appellant cannot claim any relief on that ground. We are unable to find any merit in the contention raised before us and we are also of the view that the High Court was not in error while dismissing the writ petition even on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. The representation of the appellant was rejected as back in the year 1999 and for the reasons best known to the appellant he did not challenge the same before the court of competent jurisdiction."

11. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and Anr. vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Ors., 2013 (11) SCALE 56 has held as under:-

"15. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing Director v. K. Thangappan and Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Court took note of the factual position and laid down that when nearly for two decades the Respondent-workmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify a belated approach.

16. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray (1977) 3 SCC 396 it has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. The said principle was reiterated in State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik (1976) 3 SCC 579.

xxx xxx xxx

18. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam (2007) 10 SCC 137, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: ...filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.

xxx xxx xxx

22. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the Respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Any one who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As we perceive neither the tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotion. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in

all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the tribunal and accepted by the High Court. True it is, notional promotional benefits have been granted but the same is likely to affect the State exchequer regard being had to the fixation of pay and the pension. These aspects have not been taken into consideration. What is urged before us by the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that they should have been equally treated with Madhav Singh Tadagi. But equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not after expiry of two decades. Not for nothing, it has been said that everything may stop but not the time, for all are in a way slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life at any point of time.

(emphasis supplied)

12. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is barred by laches and repeated representations by the petitioner would not extend the period for filing the writ petition.

13. This Court is further of the view that if the present writ petition is entertained, it would cause serious prejudice to the respondent inasmuch as the officials who had dealt with the file would not be available.

14. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 11, 2014 js