Writ petition filed for direction to DDA to hand over land to Cooperative Society and for allotment to petitioner. Court held petitioner lacked locus standi as only Society can claim from DDA. Petition barred due to laches as cause of action arose decades ago; representations do not arrest time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~32
NEETU TULI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.M.K.Dhingra, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Nikhil Goel with Mr.Ashutosh Ghade, Advocates for R-1. Mr.C.M.Goyal, Advocate for R-2.
Date of Decision 1st September, 2016
%
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
W.P.(C) 1716/2016
Page 1 of 5
DDA allotted the aforesaid parcel of land to respondent No.3/ Cooperative Society after payment of demand raised by DDA. However, it is alleged that the DDA has not yet handed over the possession of the said plot to respondent No.3/ Cooperative Society.
W.P.(C) 1716/2016
Page 2 of 5
“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.”
“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.
W.P.(C) 1716/2016
Page 3 of 5
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.
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. Anyone 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.
W.P.(C) 1716/2016
Page 4 of 5
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)
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2016 KA
W.P.(C) 1716/2016
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to maintain the writ petition seeking possession of land for allotment to a cooperative society.
Whether the present writ petition is barred by laches due to the delay arising since 1974 or 1976 despite continuous representations.
Whether mere making of repeated representations can extend the limitation period or justify a belated approach.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr.Referred¶7
Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr., Appeal (Civil) No.4790/2006
Naresh Kumar vs. Department of Atomic Energy and OthersRelied on¶8
Naresh Kumar vs. Department of Atomic Energy and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 525 · Who else cites this
State of Uttaranchal and Anr. vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Ors.Relied on¶9
State of Uttaranchal and Anr. vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Ors., 2013 (11) SCALE 56
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan and Anr.Referred¶9
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan and Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 322 · Who else cites this
State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan SamantarayRelied on¶16
State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray (1977) 3 SCC 396 · Who else cites this
State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar PatnaikReferred¶16
State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik (1976) 3 SCC 579 · Who else cites this
State of T.N. v. SeshachalamRelied on¶18
State of T.N. v. Seshachalam (2007) 10 SCC 137 · Who else cites this
Neetu Tuli
Delhi Development Authority
Cooperative Society
Manmohan
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
