SURJEET SINGH SAHNI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 728 · Decided: 28-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 728
728
SURJEET SINGH SAHNI
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3008 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Delay / Laches – Belated representation before appropriate
authority – Delayed writ petition – Effect of – Held: Mere
representation before the authority does not extend the period of
limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court
expeditiously and within reasonable time – If it is found that a writ
petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss
it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by
relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation before the
authority and / or directing the authority to decide the representation
– Such order should not give an opportunity to the petitioner to
thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently
(by the authority) has given a fresh cause of action – Constitution
of India, 1950 – Art.226.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.226 – Belated writ petition
u/Art. 226, arising out of contract between the parties – Relief sought
in the form of specific performance of the contract – Maintainability
of the writ petition – Held: On facts, no writ u/Art.226 shall be
maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the
contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even
the suit for specific performance would have been barred by
limitation – Limitation.
Dismissing the SLP, the Court
HELD:1.1. In the instant case, by way of writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution as such the petitioner prayed for
a specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated
19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner made a
representation for allotment of 10% plot as per Clause 12 of the
Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 in the year 2010, i.e., after a period
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
729
of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore,
as such if the suit would have been filed for specific performance,
the same would have been barred by limitation. Despite the above,
the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court and
prayed for specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed
dated 19.09.2001, which was also filed after a period of 11 years
from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such
when the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2011 which
was also barred by delay and laches, the High Court ought not to
have entertained the same. Instead, the High Court entertained
the said writ petition and directed the NOIDA to decide the
representation of the petitioner expeditiously and it gave the fresh
blood to the litigation, which otherwise was barred by delay and
laches. NOIDA however rejected the said representation.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition which was
rightly dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
[Paras 4, 7][732-B-E; 733-D]
1.2. There are number of orders passed by the High Courts
directing the authorities to decide the representation though the
representations are made belatedly and thereafter when a decision
is taken on such representation, thereafter it can be said on behalf
of the petitioner that the fresh cause of action has arisen on
rejection of the representation. Therefore, when such orders are
passed by the High Courts either relegating the petitioner to
make a representation and/or directing the appropriate authority
to decide the representation, the High Courts have to consider
whether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same is
barred by laches and/or not, so that in future the person who has
approached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause of
action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Even in a
case where earlier representation is rejected, the High Court
shall decide the matter on merits. [Para 4][732-F-H; 733-A]
2. Mere representation does not extend the period of
limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court
expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the
writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should
dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ
SURJEET SINGH SAHNI v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation
and/or directing the authority to decid

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.