Summary
The petitioner sought allotment of a developed plot under a clause in a long-completed sale to NOIDA. After a belated representation and an earlier direction to decide it, he treated its rejection as a basis for renewed writ proceedings. The Court held that representations and directions to decide them do not revive stale claims. It also declined the attempted contractual specific-performance relief in writ jurisdiction and dismissed the special leave petition.
Issues
- Whether rejection of a belated representation supplied a fresh cause of action for a stale contractual claim.
- Whether the petitioner could obtain the sought specific performance through Article 226 proceedings.
- How courts should address delay before directing disposal of representations.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court rejected this belated attempt to obtain contractual specific performance through writ proceedings and emphasised scrutiny of delay before directing consideration of representations. (¶ 4-6)
Held
- A representation does not extend limitation, and its later rejection does not revive a claim already stale through delay and laches. The original cause of action and the petitioner’s diligence remained decisive. (¶ 4-5)
- Before relegating a petitioner to a representation or directing the authority to decide it, the High Court must examine whether the claim is belated. Where delay and laches are established, threshold dismissal is appropriate rather than an order enabling a purported new cause of action. (¶ 4-5)
- The relief sought was specific performance of the sale-deed clause after a long delay, by which time a civil specific-performance claim would itself have been time-barred. The High Court rightly refused that writ relief. (¶¶ 4, 6)
- The special leave petition lacked merit and was dismissed with pending applications. (¶ 7)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed. The High Court’s refusal of the belated allotment claim was left undisturbed; pending applications were disposed of.