Practice Of Filing Representations In An Attempt To Extend Cause Of Action To Overcome Delay Should Be Discouraged: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the practice of filing representations, in an attempt to extend the cause of action as a ground to overcome the delay, should be discouraged.

Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Vindhya Gurukul College against the decision taken by Northern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 266th meeting wherein it was granted recognition for only 50 seats (one basic unit) of B.Ed. course, as opposed to the original decision taken in an earlier meeting wherein recognition was granted with an annual intake of 100 seats (two basic units).

The Petitioners had thus sought a direction to restore the recognition in terms of the original decision dated 20th May, 2016 or in the alternative, a direction to the Respondents to decide it's representations.

It was the case of the Petitioners that NRC could not have suo moto reviewed the earlier decision vide subsequent Order dated 17th April, 2017 and reduce the intake of the College from 100 seats to 50 seats without specifying any reason for the same.

When the Court queried the counsel of petitioners about the gross delay on their in impugning the orders, it was argued that several representations were made by them against the decisions which were not considered by the Respondents authorities.

On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the minutes of NRC in its meeting dated 20th May, 2016 were only published on the website and there was no formal communication issued for the recognition as contended by the Petitioners.

The Court thus noted that the subsequent Order dated 17th April, 2017 was well-within the knowledge of the Petitioners and the same was passed after affording an opportunity of hearing.

"Therefore, if the Petitioners had any grievance, it ought to have exercised its remedies, in accordance with law and in time," it noted.

The Court was of the view that merely by making representations, the Petitioners cannot extend the cause of action.

"Therefore, pendency of the representations cannot be a ground to explain the delay. Petitioners should have impugned the subsequent Order dated 17th April, 2017 expeditiously and within reasonable time, by approaching a court of law, if no statutory remedy was available, as contended by the Petitioners. Filing multiple representations cannot be considered a ground for ignoring the gross delay on their part in approaching the Court," the Court observed.

Taking note of the fact that the Petitioners were guilty of delay and laches, the Court observed that the petition deserved to be rejected at the said threshold.

"By seeking the alternate prayer, Petitioners are seeking an opportunity to subsequently contend that rejection of the representation has given a fresh cause of action. This cannot be permitted in the facts of the case discussed," the Court said.

It added "In fact, such a practice of filing representations, in an attempt to extend the cause of action as a ground to overcome the delay, should be discouraged."

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.

Case Title: VINDHYA GURUKUL COLLEGE & ANR. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 587

Click Here To Read Order