Litigant Who Is Not Diligent Cannot Invoke Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction Of High Court: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a liitigant who lacks diligence cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the order of the High Court deciding in favour of a society that was denied allotment of land to build a school in Vasant Kunj without requisite sponsorship letter.
The Court noted the society’s delay of 11 years in filing a writ petition, despite receiving in-principle approval in 2003 and emphasized that the Petition was liable to be dismissed on these grounds of unreasonable delay.
The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “the litigant who is not diligent cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”.
Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan appeared for the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Respondent.
The Hello Home Educational Society sought to establish a school in Jasola, New Delhi, facing challenges such as an erroneous land recommendation for Vasant Kunj and a policy shift by the DDA towards auctioning educational plots. Despite an in-principle approval and a CBI inquiry, no allotment occurred. Legal disputes ensued, with the DDA filing appeals and a Review Petition, primarily addressing the location substitution from 'Jasola' to 'Vasant Kunj'.
The Court emphasized the DDA’s valid point regarding the significant delay in approaching the Court. The Bench emphasized that a litigant lacking diligence cannot invoke the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The Society, having received in-principle approval in 2003, was criticized for waiting 11 years until 2014 to file a writ petition. The Court observed the lack of justification or satisfactory explanation for this prolonged delay, suggesting that the writ petition could have been dismissed on this basis alone.
The Bench observed the policy decision and subsequent amendments in 2006 to Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (Act), indicate land allotment through auctions. Since the Writ of Mandamus sought solely on the in-principle approval was untenable due to changed circumstances, the Court noted it to be illegal. The judgment also highlighted that internal notings and in-principle approvals do not confer vested rights until communicated as a final order.
The Court further noted that the Society lacked the necessary Sponsorship Letter for Vasant Kunj, making it ineligible under the original rules. Any allotment contrary to existing policy wouldn't benefit another society, as negative parity is disapproved under the law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and dismissed the writ petition, deeming the relief granted to the Respondent Society as a serious error.
Cause Title: Delhi Development Authority v Hello Home Education Society (2024 INSC 33)
Appearance:
Appellant: Nitin Mishra, Shreeyash U Lalit, Mitali Gupta, Anandrita, Akshita Goyal, Aditya Goyal, Apurva Gaur and Shubham Saigal Advocates
Respondent: Vinod Kumar Tewari, Dilip Singh, Raj Lakshmiverma, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari and Priyanka Dubey Advocates
