The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches in filing a writ petition may adversely affect the settled rights of the parties and can lead to the dismissal of the petition.

Manmohan, J.

1. Though the present writ petition had been filed on 1st October, 2014, yet as fundamental defects like the impugned order and the list of dates were not filed for a long time, the present case was listed before the Court by the Registry on 24th November, 2015. On the said date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner appeared and undertook to rectify the defects within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the defects were rectified and the matter is being taken up for hearing today.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent-DDA raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground of delay and laches. She points out that the delay in payment on the part of the petitioner was condoned and the allotment was revived in the year 2000. She also points out that the petitioner had given her consent for allotment of a flat at Rohini in the year 2000. According to her, the cause of action for filing the writ petition, if any, arose in the year 2000, and since the present writ petition has been filed only in 2015, the same is barred by delay and laches.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose on 28th March, 2013 as that was the date on which the petitioner was communicated that no flat can be allotted to her as the Self Financing Housing Schemes had already been closed with the approval of Ministry of Urban Development.

4. Upon a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that the cause of action for filing the present writ petition arose in the year 2000 as in the said year, the petitioner was communicated that a flat would be allotted to her in due course either at Shalimar Bagh or Rohini. The petitioner had also given her consent for allotment of a flat in Rohini vide her communication dated 6th April, 2000.

5. The Supreme Court with regard to delay and laches in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Bhailal Bhai & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 1006 has held,-

“........Learned Counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art.226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226 can be measured. This Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable......”

6. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 394 has held-

“It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallised rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits.”

7. This Court is further of the view that filing of repeated representations does not extend the period to file the writ petition. The Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar vs. Department of Atomic Energy and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 525 has held as under:-

“15. Merely because the case of the appellant was forwarded by the Department vide its Letter dated 27-1-2007 for favourable consideration, would not vest any right in the petitioner and can hardly be of any material consequence. If an employee keeps making representation after representation which are consistent