IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 19 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 44323 of 2025 M/S AVNI CONSTRUCTION A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR AJAY KUMAR JAIN Versus NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD GUNA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Ravindra Dixit - Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 2 / State.

ORDER Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) That, respondent authorities may kindly be directed to return back the security deposited in form of FDR towards the four different work orders issued as mentioned in the petition paragraph no. 5.2 alongwith security guarantee amount which was deposited in cash alongwith interest.

(ii) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

(iii) Costs of this petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that on 23/02/2012, a contract was awarded to the petitioner for Bitumen work at Ward No. 29, TIT Chauraha to Goshipura Station Road. Similarly, on 08/11/2012, Bitumen work at Ward No. 26, Mathkari Colony, Ganesh Talkies Gali to Tiwari Ji Ki Gali, and Ward No. 33, Sadar Bazar Main Road to Dubey Medical Store, and on 07/03/2013, Bitumen work at Ward No. 27, AB Road to Mishri Bai Dharamshala to Station Road was awarded. Work was completed, final bill was paid, and accordingly, security amount was required to be refunded. However, in spite of the fact that entire work was concluded in the year 2012–13, the security amount has not been refunded. Multiple representations were given from time to time, but they have fallen on deaf ears.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In Clause 4 of the petition, it is mentioned that there is no delay in filing this writ petition. Petitioner is seeking refund of the security amount which became due in the year 2013. Present petition has been filed in the year 2025. Petitioner has not filed any document to show that respondents had ever accepted their liability to refund the security amount. The period of limitation for recovery of money is three years. The amount became due for the first time in the year 2013, therefore, the suit should have been filed by 2015. Repeated representations would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179, has held as under:-

"19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.

................

28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court."

The Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, has held as under:-

"10. 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 representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be on