ORDER

M. S. Latif, M(J) Oral 01/ The applicant, through the medium of this OA seeks a direction upon the respondents to consider his representation dated 10-02-2024.

02/ Perusal of the file reveals that after a gap of 20 years, the applicant has approached the court after coming out of a deep slumber. In the face of it, the application is miserably time barred and hit by latches, thus, not maintainable. The condonation of delay application, accompanying this O.A, is also bereft of any reason, as such, it deserves no consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed.

03/ Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the applicant has been approaching the respondents by filing representation, therefore, his cause is continuing. This court is not inclined to accept this argument because of the fact that mere filing of representation does not revive a cause of action, which is already time barred. In this regard, I am fortified by the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Supreme court, in the case titled State of Tamil Nadu versus Sesha Challan 2007 vol. 10 SCC 137, wherein it has been held that filing a representation alone is not enough to come out of the