Mere filing of representation before authorities does not extend limitation period

In the matter of Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of U.P.  [SLP (C) 3008 of 2022] decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on  28.02.2022

FACTS: That the petitioner entered into a Sale Deed with the respondent – NOIDA vide Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 whereby the petitioner sold a plot to the NOIDA under the provisions of Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. That after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed, the petitioner made a representation to NOIDA vide representation dated 10.03.2010 requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court directed NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner. NOIDA considered the said representation and rejected it. This was again challenged before the High Court. This time, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable stating that Petitioner should file a suit for specific performance and on account of delay. Hence, this appeal.

OBSERVATIONS: The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such the petitioner prayed for a specific performance and approached the courts after a lapse of 10 years from the date of execution of the sale deed. Therefore, even if the suit would have been filed for specific performance, the same would have been barred by limitation. It was further observed that the earlier writ petition filed in the year 2011 was also barred by delay and latches and 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 latches.

It was then held that 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 latches, the High Courts should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation.