Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1608 (ALL)

SWATANTRA KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-05-16

KRISHNA MURARI, VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. Notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been accepted by Sri Vivek Varma. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondent No. 2 to executive the sale-deed and handover the possession of plot No. 362 area 600 sq. yard situate in Scheme No. I, Kakadev, Kanpur in his favour. 4. The aforesaid relief is being claimed on the allegations that his father Ram Gulam Gupta was a freedom fighter and was allotted the said plot on 19.7.1960 by the respondent No. 2 in Freedom Fighter Category. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition, the allottee (the father of the petitioner) was required to complete certain formalities and also to deposit 1/4th of the cost of the land by way of premium. Allotment letter further stipulated a condition that if the entire premium amount is paid within two months then 5% rebate shall be provided and in case 50% of the premium amount is paid within two months then the balance amount shall be payable in two instalments from the date of execution of the lease deed. The letter further advised the allottee to contact Sales Officer, Development Board. The petitioner alleges that his father died on 25.3.1966 leaving behind him and respondents No. 3 and 4 as his heir and legal representative. The petitioner has also filed a notice dated 28.4.1986 requiring them to deposit a sum of Rs. 4063.05 towards 1/4th of the premium which was to be deposited as long back as in 1960. There is nothing on record that even after notice dated 28.4.1986 the petitioner made any deposit towards the outstanding amount or complied with other conditions mentioned therein. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that various representations were made but it was the respondent No. 2 who did not take any action in the matter on account of which the deed could not be executed. 6. On record of the writ petition, only an alleged representation dated 10.5.2012 has been filed without there being any evidence to substantiate that it was served on the authority. 6. On record of the writ petition, only an alleged representation dated 10.5.2012 has been filed without there being any evidence to substantiate that it was served on the authority. The issue involved in this petition is whether after lapse of almost 54 years the claim of the petitioner is liable to be revived and a direction for its consideration on merits is liable to be issued. 7. Allotment letter dated 19.7.1960 clearly provides that from the date of receipt of allotment letter, 1/4th of the amount was to be deposited as premium and certain other formalities were required to completed. Again a notice was issued to the present petitioner in his capacity as heir of deceased allottee to make the deposit and to complete the formalities. But it does not appear that the petitioner ever made compliance thereof. 8. In the case of C.Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining and another, AIR 2009 SC 264 , it has been held that claim after lapse of considerable time becomes stale and is not to be given a fresh lease of life by directing to reconsider the claim. The Apex Court has clearly held that a dead claim cannot be permitted to be revived by passing an order to consider and decide representation. It may be relevant to quote the following from the said judgment : “6. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to other side) without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. The Courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assumes that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representations does not involve any decision on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to ‘consider’. If the representation is considered and accepted the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to ‘consider’. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay proceeding the representation and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar or limitation or the latches gets obliterated or ignored. 7. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representation unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or to inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 8. When a direction is issued by a Court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the Court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of ‘acknowledgment or a jural relationship’ to give rise to a fresh cause of action. 10. We are constrained to refer to the several facts of the issue only to emphasize the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for ‘consideration’. If the representation is on the face of it is stale or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, Courts should desist from directing ‘consideration’ of such claims. 11. The present case is a typical example of ‘representation and relief’. The petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after the termination. A stage is reached when no record is available regarding his previous service. In the representations which he makes in 2000 he claims that he should be taken back to service. 11. The present case is a typical example of ‘representation and relief’. The petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after the termination. A stage is reached when no record is available regarding his previous service. In the representations which he makes in 2000 he claims that he should be taken back to service. But on rejection of the said representation by order dated 4.9.2002, he filed a writ petition claiming service benefits by referring the said order of rejection as the cause of action. As noticed above, the learned Single Judge examined the claim, as if it was a live claim made in time, finds fault with the respondents for not producing material to show that termination was proceeded by due inquiry and declares the termination as illegal. When a person approaches a Court after two decades after termination the burden would be on him to prove what he alleges. The learned Single Judge dealt with the matter as if he the appellant had approached the Court immediately after the termination. All this happened, because of grant of an innocuous prayer to ‘consider’ a representation relating to a stale issue.” 9. Thus it is well-settled that in case a person sleeps over his rights for sufficiently long time, the Court should not reopen the controversy and direct a de-novo investigation into the facts. The authority concerned cannot be expected to keep all the records intact after lapse of considerable time. 10. In identical facts and circumstances, same view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 42690 of 2013 decided on 7.8.2013. 11. The law Courts are to help a litigant who is conscious about his valuable rights and does not come to the rescue of one who is casual and unconcern in respect of his claim and permits the same to become stale by lapse of time. Such a casual litigant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own lapse and to get a dead and stale claim revived as and when he choses, otherwise, there will be no finality and there will be an endless process. 12. The Apex Court in the case of C.Jacob (Supra), rejected the claim of the litigant who had approached the Court after 18 years. 13. 12. The Apex Court in the case of C.Jacob (Supra), rejected the claim of the litigant who had approached the Court after 18 years. 13. In the case in hand, the petitioner has chosen to wake up after about 43 years of allotment in favour of his deceased father and that too, without bringing any material on record to substantiate that necessary steps for making the required deposit and complying all other formalities were taken within a reasonable time by his deceased father after allotment or even by him when a subsequent notice dated 28.4.1986 for the aforesaid purpose was issued. 14. In view of settled legal position on the issue and the facts of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, at such a belated stage. 15. The petition accordingly stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.