Limitation Period Cannot Be Extended By 'One-Way Traffic' Of Letters Or Belated Representations: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that once the clock of limitation starts ticking, it cannot be stopped and/or extended by sending of letters/communications in a "one-way traffic".

The Court further ruled that writ petitions under Article 226 are generally not maintainable to recover purely contractual money claims involving disputed questions of fact.

Case in brief

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by one Janardan Singh (contractor) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Flood Works Division, District Gonda, to release his outstanding payments with interest.

The outstanding payment was allegedly for protection work carried out by the petitioner during the year 2016-17 on the Charsari Embankment.

The petitioner submitted copies of letters he had written to the authorities over the past ten years demanding outstanding payments. However, there was not a single document on record whereby the State authorities admitted or acknowledged their liability.

The State, on the other hand, disputed the amount and also the correspondence sent by the petitioner.

High Court's observations

Dismissing the plea as a “stale claim”, the High Court noted that more than 3 years had elapsed from the date on which the cause of action arose, during which the petitioner could have asserted his claim.

The Court pointed out that while the work was completed in 2016-17, the petitioner had merely sent belated representations dated 10.08.2022 and 25.02.2023, which were "without any consequence."

The bench further relied on the Supreme Court judgments in M/S B and T AG vs. Ministry of Defence and Secunderabad Cantonment Board vs. M/S B. Ramachandraiah And Sons 2021, to observe thus:

"It is settled law that once the clock of limitation starts ticking, it cannot be stopped and/or extended by sending of letters/communications in a one way traffic. Such an activity cannot stretch the limitation by any period. The petitioner ought to have been vigilant of its rights and the statutory period of limitation, in that regard."

The Court further pointed out that the work had been completed in 2016-17 and that the petitioner had merely sent belated representations dated 10.08.2022 and 25.02.2023, without any consequence.

Addressing the maintainability of the writ petition in the case of a money claim, the Court referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dolly Das and Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India.

The Bench reiterated that the remedy under Article 226 could not be availed to claim any money in respect of breach of contract, tort or otherwise

"…if facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the WRIC No. 4800 of 2026 2 correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution", the bench noted.

Thus, finding that the petitioner's case involved disputed questions of fact regarding the amount and the correspondence, the Court dismissed the petition.