{"id":36550,"date":"2011-07-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-02-04T11:44:54","modified_gmt":"2016-02-04T06:14:54","slug":"municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Sanjiv Khanna<\/div>\n
*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n+                 L.P.A. No. 548 OF 2010\n\n                                              Reserved on : 18th April, 2011\n%                                             Date of Decision: 25th July, 2011\n\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI         ....Appellants\n             Through Mr. O.P.Saxena and\n                     Mr. Mithlesh Kumar, Advocates.\n\n                       VERSUS\nMOHD ISMAIL                                          ....Respondent\n                         Through Mr.Apurb Lal, Ms. Alka, Mr. Daleep Singh\n                                 and Mr. Kiran Babu, Advocates.\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n   allowed to see the judgment?\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?               Yes\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported               Yes\n   in the Digest ?\n\nSANJIV KHANNA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
       In the present intra-Court appeal filed by the Slum and JJ<\/p>\n
Department of the Delhi Municipal Corporation now known as Delhi<\/p>\n
Urban Shelter Improvement Board, the challenge is to the decision dated<\/p>\n
23rd December, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 819\/2009, Mohd. Ismail Vs.<\/p>\n
Slum & JJ Department (MCD). By the impugned judgment, the writ<\/p>\n
petition filed by Mohd. Ismail, the respondent herein, has been allowed<\/p>\n
and the following directions have been issued:-\n<\/p>\n
\nLPA 548\/2010                                                      Page 1 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                 “46. In view of the above, it is directed as
\n                follow:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (i) the petitioner or his authorised
\n                 representative shall file duly attested copies of
\n                 the photocopies whereof stand filed by him
\n                 before the Director (Allotment) of Slum & JJ
\n                 Wing of the MCD on 29th December, 2009 at
\n                 11.00 a.m.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (ii) the petitioner’s case shall be considered and
\n               he shall be allotted a plot of 40 sq. meters for
\n               commercial user in terms of his entitlement.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.    The main contention and issue raised by the appellant before this<\/p>\n
Court as was before the learned Single Judge is delay and laches. The<\/p>\n
question, which arises, is to what extent the delay and laches would defeat<\/p>\n
the right, if any, of the respondent. In order to decide the issue, relevant<\/p>\n
facts may be noticed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    The respondent was in occupation of property bearing No.3339,<\/p>\n
Ward No.XIV, Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, which was demolished in<\/p>\n
the year 1976. Before demolition, CID of Delhi Police had carried out a<\/p>\n
survey and prepared a report detailing the occupants of the properties,<\/p>\n
which were to be demolished. The respondent was identified at Sr.<\/p>\n
No.521 and as per the report respondent was in occupation of 22’\u00d712′ and<\/p>\n
22’\u00d712 (first floor) and the said premises was being used for residence<\/p>\n
and factory. Licence No.31083 was mentioned. It records the rent receipt<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                  Page 2 of 17<\/span>
\n No. as 741071. The respondent has also placed on record a copy of the<\/p>\n
CID survey report at pages 143 and 144 of the paper book in support of<\/p>\n
the said contention. There is material in the form of internal file notings,<\/p>\n
which show that on verification, it was found that one Mohd. Ismail S\/o<\/p>\n
Mohd. Ishaque was in occupation of the aforesaid property, which was<\/p>\n
being used for residence and factory. The respondent has referred and<\/p>\n
relied upon Form No.C (registration certificate of the establishment)<\/p>\n
issued under Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 that he was<\/p>\n
operating an establishment from the said premises in the name and style<\/p>\n
of Modern Cabinet Manufacturing. It is not disputed by the appellant that<\/p>\n
in terms of the policy, the persons in occupation of the properties at Sarai<\/p>\n
Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, which were demolished, were entitled to<\/p>\n
alternative residential accommodation. These persons were also entitled<\/p>\n
for commercial or industrial plots, if they were carrying on commercial<\/p>\n
activities from the premises, which were demolished.<\/p>\n
4.    The respondent was issued demolition slip No.5198 dated 16th May,<\/p>\n
1976 and thereafter allotted a residential flat in Inderlok. The respondent,<\/p>\n
however, protested and had asked for change of allotment of the flat. On<\/p>\n
24th July, 1985, the respondent was allotted an MIG flat No. A-2\/1, Sarai<\/p>\n
Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. There is no dispute about the allotment of the<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                 Page 3 of 17<\/span>
\n said residential flat. The appellant does not dispute that the respondent<\/p>\n
was entitled to allotment of the said flat.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.     The dispute pertains to allotment of commercial or industrial plot to<\/p>\n
the respondent. The respondent has placed on record and relied upon the<\/p>\n
letter dated 26th July, 1976 written by the Commissioner, Slum & JJ<\/p>\n
Department, DDA to the respondent in connection with the allotment of<\/p>\n
an industrial plot at Shahzada Bagh. He was asked to produce his ration<\/p>\n
card, failing which allotment shall be cancelled and possession shall be<\/p>\n
taken by the department. It is apparent that the respondent did not respond<\/p>\n
to this letter. The respondent was asked to produce ration card against the<\/p>\n
House No.C-39\/8, Main Road, Jafrabad, New Seelampur, Delhi. The said<\/p>\n
letter was addressed to Mohd. Ismail at House No.53C, Block A-7,<\/p>\n
Inderlok, Delhi. There is some doubt about the authenticity of the said<\/p>\n
letter as there is no explanation forthcoming why the respondent was<\/p>\n
asked to produce ration card against the aforesaid address at New<\/p>\n
Seelampur, whereas as per the demolition slip and the CID survey report,<\/p>\n
the respondent was residing at Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The file<\/p>\n
number (11\/PA\/AC\/HQ\/76) mentioned on this letter is different from the<\/p>\n
file   number    mentioned     by   the   respondent   in   its   subsequent<\/p>\n
correspondence, which is No.141\/PA\/AC\/HQ\/76, but this appears to be a<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                  Page 4 of 17<\/span>
\n typographical    error.    It   may    be   noted    here    that    the      file<\/p>\n
No.141\/PA\/AC\/HQ\/76 is missing and is not traceable. Office copy of this<\/p>\n
letter dated 26th July, 1976 is not available on the records of the appellant.<\/p>\n
It is on this letter dated 26th July, 1976 that the claim of the respondent is<\/p>\n
based and was reiterated and examined in 1986 and thereafter.<\/p>\n
6.    The respondent after 1976, wrote the letter dated 2nd June, 1986. In<\/p>\n
this letter he had stated as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “Incidentally I met with an accident in those days
\n           causing a major by injury which did not allow me to
\n           pursue my case for the allotment of alternative plot at
\n           Shahzada Bagh. I received the above referred letter
\n           from your office but failed to appear before the
\n           Office due to the above said reason. My children
\n           were very young and therefore they too, could not go
\n           to the office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Sir, I am in a very miserable condition. During the
\n           last 10 years, I have been under difficult conditions.
\n           Being confined to bed I could hardly do for my
\n           family and this forced my children to give up studies
\n           and make for the livelihood of the family.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Under the circumstances mentioned above I could
\n           not get allotment of plot at Shahzada Bagh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              You are, therefore, requested to kindly allot me an
\n           industrial\/commercial plot at Shahzada Bagh at the
\n           earliest.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                   Page 5 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 7.    This was followed by letters of similar nature dated 18th June, 1986,<\/p>\n
and 4th January, 1988. Thereafter, letters dated 25th February, 1991, 26th<\/p>\n
June, 1998 and 29th December, 1998 were written by the respondent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These letters, and the file notings have been examined below.<\/p>\n
8.    After 1999, there was again silence on the part of the respondent at<\/p>\n
least till May, 2003 when it appears that applications\/requests were made<\/p>\n
for allotment of a commercial plot.      These were forwarded through<\/p>\n
Minister of Development, Revenue Irrigation & Food and Food & Civil<\/p>\n
Supply, Delhi Secretariat and by the then Mayor of Delhi, the Additional<\/p>\n
Private Secretary Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, Government<\/p>\n
of India and the then Municipal Councillor, Qasab Pura consitutency. In<\/p>\n
the file notings, it was recorded that the original file was not available,<\/p>\n
documents submitted by the respondent were not complete since the<\/p>\n
originals were not filed by the respondent. It was recorded in the noting<\/p>\n
dated 30th May, 2003 that the allotment was to be examined by the<\/p>\n
allotment committee but as the same was not functioning, as and when the<\/p>\n
same was constituted , the case of the respondent would be put up to the<\/p>\n
allotment committee.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.    Another representation of the petitioner was forwarded by<\/p>\n
Chairman, Standing Committee, MCD and by the Additional Private
\nLPA 548\/2010                                                 Page 6 of 17<\/span>
\n Secretary to the Ministry of State for Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of<\/p>\n
India, New Delhi and was processed on 3rd September, 2003. The file<\/p>\n
notings in the month of October, 2004 reveal that the respondent had<\/p>\n
made a further representation for the plot. This representation was<\/p>\n
processed and in the noting dated 22nd December, 2004, it was recorded<\/p>\n
that the properties in Sarai Khalil\/Turkmangate area were demolished<\/p>\n
during 1975-76 and the damages for the period during which the property<\/p>\n
remained in the category of residential\/ commercial use were charged on<\/p>\n
the prevailing rate till the date of demolition. Licence fee was chargeable<\/p>\n
for the alternative allotment for the period during which the flat\/plot if<\/p>\n
allotted remained under the possession of the evictee\/allotee. This is<\/p>\n
important and shows that the respondent was required to pay of the plot<\/p>\n
and also pay damages for using the property at Sarai Khalil area prior to<\/p>\n
demolition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Another detailed note dated 7th January, 2005, records that in 1987,<\/p>\n
the case of allotment of the commercial plot was assessed in the past and<\/p>\n
the respondent was liable to pay damages for commercial use for the<\/p>\n
period 1st January, 1969 to 16th May, 1976 @ Rs.5\/- per square meter and<\/p>\n
Re.1 per square meter for the residential area. The total amount payable<\/p>\n
was Rs.13,428\/-, but the respondent was not informed.      Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                 Page 7 of 17<\/span>
\n file was submitted to the allotment committee for passing of appropriate<\/p>\n
orders.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   It appears that the respondent approached the Public Grievance<\/p>\n
Commission, Government of NCT of Delhi by making a complaint.<\/p>\n
Vide letter dated 16th August, 2004, the Public Grievance Commission<\/p>\n
was informed that the record regarding allotment of flat to the respondent<\/p>\n
was available and could be produced whenever required by the respondent<\/p>\n
to process the case. Thereafter a number of letters dated 31 st August,<\/p>\n
2005, 27th March, 2006, 14th April, 2006, 7th January, 2008, were written<\/p>\n
by the respondent. On 27th July, 2009, the allotment committee rejected<\/p>\n
the claim made by the respondent, inter alia, recording as under:-<\/p>\n
                      “The applicant was given several
\n               opportunity to attend the meetings before
\n               Allotment Committee along with the
\n               attested\/original documents in support of his
\n               claim. But even on the last & final opportunity
\n               he did not turn up along with the
\n               original\/attested copies of relevant documents to
\n               substantiate his claim for allotment of
\n               commercial plot. On 05.05.09 the applicant had
\n               submitted photocopies (unattested\/ unsigned by
\n               the Competent Authority) namely Form-C Delhi
\n               Shop & Establishment Act, 1954 and CID
\n               survey report. All these documents were sent
\n               for verification from the concerned department,
\n               but the same could not be verified by the<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                  Page 8 of 17<\/span>
\n                respective department due to old non-available
\n               relevant records.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      After examining the records of the
\n               department as well as documents submitted by
\n               the applicant the Allotment Committee is of the
\n               view that the documents pertain to about 30
\n               years old and inspite of several times calls sent
\n               to the applicant. The applicant failed to provide
\n               the original documents\/ attested copy of
\n               photocopy of documents before the Allotment
\n               Committee. Hence, the Allotment Committee is
\n               of the view that there is no justification &
\n               weightage in the claim for allotment of
\n               alternative Commercial plot in favour of the
\n               applicant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.   This order was then made subject matter of challenge in Writ<\/p>\n
Petition No. 819\/2009 which has been allowed by the impugned order<\/p>\n
dated 23rd December, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   The question which arises for consideration is whether delay and<\/p>\n
laches in the present case should disentitle the respondent from the reliefs<\/p>\n
granted and allowed by the learned Single Judge. In Ram Chand vs.<\/p>\n
Union of India,<\/a> (1994) 1 SCC 44 and State of U.P. and Ors. vs.<\/p>\n
Manohar,<\/a> (2005) 2 SCC 126, it has been held that when the State fails<\/p>\n
and is negligent in performing its statutory duties, the delay and inaction<\/p>\n
furnishes a cause of action and gives a right to the citizen to invoke<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Court. When an authority fails to perform its duty<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                  Page 9 of 17<\/span>
\n within reasonable time, delay and laches cannot be a ground to deny relief<\/p>\n
to a petitioner who has suffered injury and harm because of the delay and<\/p>\n
non-performance of duty on the part of the authorities. Similarly, the State<\/p>\n
being a virtuous litigant should meet the genuine claims and not deny<\/p>\n
them for want of action on their part. At the same time, the question of<\/p>\n
prejudice and creation of third party right or interest is an important and<\/p>\n
relevant aspect which has to be examined by the Court when the question<\/p>\n
of delay arises. Laches also obscures facts, encourages dubious claims and<\/p>\n
prevents fair and just adjudication by the Courts. Often relevant and<\/p>\n
material evidence and details go missing or are not traceable. These result<\/p>\n
in and cause prejudice to the case and defence of the respondent\/State.<\/p>\n
14.   The gaps and hiatus on the part of the respondent have been<\/p>\n
referred to above. They are from the period 1976 to 1986, then from<\/p>\n
1986\/1988 to 1991, then till 1998\/1999 and lastly between 2000 till 2003.<\/p>\n
What is relevant and material is that the respondent, in order to secure<\/p>\n
allotment, was required to produce original papers as well as pay money<\/p>\n
in the form of damages to secure allotment. As per the calculations made<\/p>\n
by the appellant in 1986, the respondent was liable to pay Rs.5 and Re.1<\/p>\n
per square meter for area under commercial and residential use<\/p>\n
respectively during the period 1st January, 1969 to 16th May, 1976. The<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                 Page 10 of 17<\/span>
\n said amount works out to Rs.13,428\/- (Rs.11,190 + Rs.2,238) which may<\/p>\n
look paltry or small today but during the relevant period i.e. in 1976, it<\/p>\n
was a reasonable amount. Amount was chargeable\/payable for alternative<\/p>\n
allotment. Doubts and questions about the letter dated 26th July, 1976<\/p>\n
have been mentioned above. The original file as was prepared in 1976 is<\/p>\n
not traceable and available. In 1986 when the respondent had approached<\/p>\n
the authorities for allotment of the commercial plot doubts were expressed<\/p>\n
about the respondent’s entitlement\/claim due to the time gap and missing<\/p>\n
file. Similarly, doubts were also raised about the letters produced by him<\/p>\n
and the medical certificates. In the noting dated 4th August, 1986, it is<\/p>\n
recorded that the age of the respondent mentioned in the medical reports<\/p>\n
submitted by the respondent is 26 years, whereas the age mentioned in the<\/p>\n
ration card was 54 years. The respondent had stated that he had met with<\/p>\n
an accident and suffered major injuries and had relied upon reports of<\/p>\n
1977, January, 1978 and one report of July, 1983. This hardly explains<\/p>\n
the long hiatus and the delay.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.   As noticed above, the original file in the case of the respondent as<\/p>\n
was prepared in 1976 is missing. We do not know what ensued and<\/p>\n
transpired after the purported letter dated 26th July, 1976 was written by<\/p>\n
the authorities to the respondent. The letter dated 26 th July, 1976 refers to<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                  Page 11 of 17<\/span>
\n industrial plot at Shahzada Bagh and a tenement at Inderlok. The<\/p>\n
respondent claims that he was allotted a tenement at Inderlok<\/p>\n
(subsequently an MIG flat was allotted at Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar,<\/p>\n
Delhi) but not the plot. The respondent it appears had lost interest in the<\/p>\n
commercial plot because of the quantum of damages he had to pay as a<\/p>\n
precondition. The delay being substantial and as the original file is not<\/p>\n
traceable we do not know what exactly had happened but the respondent<\/p>\n
was silent and silence indicates unresponsiveness and unwillingness on<\/p>\n
the part of the respondent to comply with his obligations. The present case<\/p>\n
is not of mere inaction or failure on the part of the authorities (which for<\/p>\n
want of and missing file remains uncertain) but reluctance and intention<\/p>\n
of the respondent at the given point of time not to claim any right on the<\/p>\n
industrial\/commercial plot.\n<\/p>\n
16.   In case of delay and laches in filing a writ petition, the court is<\/p>\n
required to consider the facts and situation in each case, to decide whether<\/p>\n
the petitioner therein has chosen to sit over the matter and has woken up<\/p>\n
to gain any extra advantage. Other aspects which have been examined<\/p>\n
have been referred to above. In Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. vs.<\/p>\n
District Board, Bhojpur,<\/a> (1992) 2 SCC 598, the following test has been<\/p>\n
laid down by the Supreme Court:\n<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                 Page 12 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                     “13. The rule which says that the Court
\n          may not enquire into belated and stale claim is
\n          not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on
\n          sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each
\n          case must depend upon its own facts. It will all
\n          depend on what the breach of the fundamental
\n          right and the remedy claimed are and how delay
\n          arose. The principle on which the relief to the
\n          party on the grounds of laches or delay is denied
\n          is that the rights which have accrued to others by
\n          reason of the delay in filing the petition should
\n          not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a
\n          reasonable explanation for the delay. The real
\n          test to determine delay in such cases is that the
\n          petitioner should come to the writ court before a
\n          parallel right is created and that the lapse of time
\n          is not attributable to any laches or negligence.
\n          The test is not to physical running of time.
\n          Where the circumstances justifying the conduct
\n          exists, the illegality which is manifest cannot be
\n          sustained on the sole ground of laches. The
\n          decision in Tilokchand case relied on is
\n          distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
\n          The levy if based on the net profits of the
\n          railway undertaking was beyond the authority
\n          and the illegal nature of the same has been
\n          questioned though belatedly in the pending
\n          proceedings after the pronouncement of the High
\n          Court in the matter relating to the subsequent
\n          years. That being the case, the claim of the
\n          appellant cannot be turned down on the sole
\n          ground of delay. We are of the opinion that the
\n          High Court was wrong in dismissing the writ
\n          petition in limine and refusing to grant the relief
\n          sought for. We however agree that the suit has
\n          been rightly dismissed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17.   In State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar,<\/a> (1995) 4 SCC 683, the<\/p>\n
question of delay and laches was examined and it was held as under:-
\nLPA 548\/2010                                                     Page 13 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
               “14. How a person who alleges against the
\n          State of deprivation of his legal right, can get
\n          relief of compensation from the State by
\n          invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court
\n          under Article 226 of the Constitution even
\n          though, he is guilty of laches or undue delay is
\n          difficult to comprehend, when it is well settled
\n          by decisions of this Court that no person, be he a
\n          citizen or otherwise, is entitled to obtain the
\n          equitable relief under Article 226 of the
\n          Constitution if his conduct is blameworthy
\n          because of laches, undue delay, acquiescence,
\n          waiver and the like. Moreover, how a citizen
\n          claiming discretionary relief under Article 226 of
\n          the Constitution against a State, could be
\n          relieved of his obligation to establish his
\n          unblameworthy conduct for getting such relief,
\n          where the State against which relief is sought is
\n          a Welfare State, is also difficult to comprehend.
\n          Where the relief sought under Article 226 of the
\n          Constitution by a person against the Welfare
\n          State is founded on its alleged illegal or
\n          wrongful executive action, the need to explain
\n          laches or undue delay on his part to obtain such
\n          relief, should, if anything, be more stringent than
\n          in other cases, for the reason that the State due to
\n          laches or undue delay on the part of the person
\n          seeking relief, may not be able to show that the
\n          executive action complained of was legal or
\n          correct for want of records pertaining to the
\n          action or for the officers who were responsible
\n          for such action not being available later on.
\n          Further, where granting of relief is claimed
\n          against the State on alleged unwarranted
\n          executive action, is bound to result in loss to the
\n          public exchequer of the State or in damage to
\n          other public interest, the High Court before
\n          granting such relief is required to satisfy itself
\n          that the delay or laches on the part of a citizen or
\n          any other person in approaching for relief under
\nLPA 548\/2010                                                     Page 14 of 17<\/span>
\n           Article 226 of the Constitution on the alleged
\n          violation of his legal right, was wholly justified
\n          in the facts and circumstances, instead of
\n          ignoring the same or leniently considering it.
\n          Thus, in our view, persons seeking relief against
\n          the State under Article 226 of the Constitution,
\n          be they citizens or otherwise, cannot get
\n          discretionary relief obtainable thereunder unless
\n          they fully satisfy the High Court that the facts
\n          and circumstances of the case clearly justified
\n          the laches or undue delay on their part in
\n          approaching the Court for grant of such
\n          discretionary relief. Therefore, where a High
\n          Court grants relief to a citizen or any other
\n          person under Article 226 of the Constitution
\n          against any person including the State without
\n          considering his blameworthy conduct, such as
\n          laches or undue delay, acquiescence or waiver,
\n          the relief so granted becomes unsustainable even
\n          if the relief was granted in respect of alleged
\n          deprivation of his legal right by the State.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.   It was further observed in paragraph 23:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                    “23. Therefore, where a High Court in
\n          exercise of its power vested under Article 226 of the
\n          Constitution issues a direction, order or writ for
\n          granting relief to a person including a citizen without
\n          considering his disentitlement for such relief due to
\n          his blameworthy conduct of undue delay or laches in
\n          claiming the same, such a direction, order or writ
\n          becomes unsustainable as that not made judiciously
\n          and reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial
\n          discretion, but as that made arbitrarily.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                   Page 15 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n
 19.   It is also well settled that repeated representation do not explain<\/p>\n
delay in approaching the Court. In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs.<\/p>\n
K. Thangappan,<\/a> (2006) 4 SCC 322, it has been held as under:-<\/p>\n
             “6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which
\n          is to be borne in mind by the High Court when
\n          they exercise their discretionary powers under
\n          Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate
\n          case the High Court may refuse to invoke its
\n          extraordinary powers if there is such negligence
\n          or omission on the part of the applicant to assert
\n          his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of
\n          time and other circumstances, causes prejudice
\n          to the opposite party. Even where fundamental
\n          right is involved the matter is still within the
\n          discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga
\n          Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and
\n          Exports. Of<\/a> course, the discretion has to be
\n          exercised judicially and reasonably.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             10. It has been pointed out by this Court in a
\n          number of cases that representations would not
\n          be adequate explanation to take care of delay.
\n          This was first stated in K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty
\n          v. State of Mysore. This<\/a> was reiterated in
\n          Rabindranath Bose case by stating that there is a
\n          limit to the time which can be considered
\n          reasonable for making representations and if the
\n          Government had turned down one representation
\n          the making of another representation on similar
\n          lines will not explain the delay. In State of
\n          Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray<\/a> making of
\n          repeated representations was not regarded as
\n          satisfactory explanation of the delay. In that case
\n          the petition had been dismissed for delay alone.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                    Page 16 of 17<\/span><\/p>\n
           (See State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik<\/a>
\n          also.)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20.   Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned decision<\/p>\n
dated 23rd December, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 819\/2009, Mohd.<\/p>\n
Ismail Vs. Slum & JJ Department (MCD) is set aside. The said writ<\/p>\n
petition will be treated as dismissed. In facts of the case, there will be no<\/p>\n
orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                     (SANJIV KHANNA)
\n                                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                       ( DIPAK MISRA )
\n                                                       CHIEF JUSTICE
\n25th July, 2011
\nNA\/KKB<\/p>\n
LPA 548\/2010                                                  Page 17 of 17<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011 Author: Sanjiv Khanna * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + L.P.A. No. 548 OF 2010 Reserved on : 18th April, 2011 % Date of Decision: 25th July, 2011 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ….Appellants Through Mr. O.P.Saxena and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-04T06:14:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-04T06:14:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3819,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-04T06:14:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-04T06:14:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-04T06:14:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011"},"wordCount":3819,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011","name":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-04T06:14:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-mohd-ismail-on-25-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mohd Ismail on 25 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36550","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}