AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“(a)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a declaration that the Office Memoranda No. SE/TAS/GST/08 dated 04.12.2017, No. SE/TAS/GST/13 dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure P-8), No. SE/TAS/GST/17 dated 29.09.2020 (Annexure P-9) and No. SE/TAS/GST/18 dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure P- 10), and the amendment No. DG/CON/298 dated 29.09.2017 as modified by No. DG/CON/299 dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P-6), issued by Respondent No. 3, do not form part of Agreement No. 03/EE/EPDI/ PWD/2017-18/01514 between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, and have no force in the Government of NCT of Delhi in the absence of adoption by it, and cannot form the basis of any recovery from the Petitioner; 53 W.P.(C)-16655/2026
(b)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a declaration that the approval of pre-GST input tax rates by the ADG (Projects), PWD on 18.11.2022, recorded in the file notings at Annexure P-12, and the recomputation of the Petitioner’s GST position founded thereon, were without authority of law;
(c)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing:
(i)the impugned letter No. 54(3)/EE/EPD-1/PWD/2026-27/478 dated 29.08.2026 issued by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure P-1);
(ii)the impugned recovery letter dated 10.03.2023 issued by Respondent No. 5 (Annexure P-3), including the approval of the Chief Engineer (OP) dated 09.03.2023 communicated thereby;
(iii)the impugned recovery letter No. 54(3)/EE/EPD-1/PWD/2023-24/176 dated 06.04.2023 issued by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure P-2), including the withdrawal of the reimbursement of ₹4,22,20,322/- and the approval of GST Statement No. 1 referred to therein;
(iv)the sanction dated 20.04.2023 of the second GST statement up to the 47th RA Bill (minus ₹9,44,813/-), recorded in the file notings at Annexure P- 12 and referred to in the impugned letter dated 29.08.2026 (Annexure P- 1);
(v)the deductions aggregating ₹9,05,81,773/- made in the 51st and 52nd Civil RA Bills and the 29th and 30th Electrical RA Bills of the Petitioner (Annexure P-4);
(d)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to refund to the Petitioner the sum of ₹9,05,81,773/- (Rupees Nine Crore Five Lakh Eighty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Three only) together with interest at 18% per annum or, in the alternative, at the rate stipulated in Clause 7 of the GCC, or at such other rate as this Hon’ble Court deems fit from the respective dates of deduction until the date of payment;
(e)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from making any further recovery, deduction or adjustment from the Petitioner on account of GST, whether from the final bill, security deposit, bank guarantees or any other sum payable to the Petitioner;
(f)In the alternative to prayer (d), issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to refund to the Petitioner ₹4,83,61,451/-recovered as “negative GST impact” through the deductions at Annexure P-4, with interest;
(g)In the further alternative, remand the Petitioner’s representation for decision by an officer not below the rank of Superintending Engineer, by a reasoned order dealing with each contention, within a period to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;”
Succinctly stated, the petitioner is a works contractor and was awarded the work of developing the East Delhi Campus of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University at Surajmal Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi. The last date for submission of tenders was 11.05.2017, i.e., prior to the introduction of GST. The Letter of Acceptance was issued on 29.07.2017, and the Agreement bearing No. 03/EE/EPD-I/PWD/2017-18/01514 was executed on 10.08.2017.
In the years 2020 and 2021, the respondents reimbursed a sum of ₹4,22,20,322/- to the petitioner towards GST under Clause 38 of the General Conditions of Contract, 2014. Thereafter, vide letters dated 10.03.2023 and 06.04.2023, the respondents sought to recover the said amount, along with a further amount on account of the alleged ‘negative GST impact’. Between June and October 2023, a total sum of ₹9,05,81,773/- was deducted from the running account bills of the petitioner.
It is stated that, being aggrieved by the said recovery, the petitioner made representations to the PWD, the last of which is dated 26.02.2026. As its grievance remained unaddressed, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 4748/2026. This Court by order dated 10.04.2026, directed the PWD to decide the representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 18.04.2026. As no decision was taken within the stipulated period, the petitioner filed CONT. CAS(C) 1414/2026, which was disposed of by order dated 07.08.2026, upon the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the representation would be decided within four weeks. Thereafter, the respondents rejected the representation vide letter dated 29.08.2026.
Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery is not supported by any provision of the Agreement. He submits that the CPWD Office Memoranda do not form part of the Agreement and were never adopted by the GNCTD. He further submits that the approval of pre-GST input tax rates granted on 18.11.2022 was without authority of law.
Arguments heard and the material placed on record perused.
It is pertinent to note that the present petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches. The petitioner seeks to challenge the recovery initiated by the respondents vide letters dated 10.03.2023 and 06.04.2023, pursuant to which deductions were made from its running account bills between June and October 2023.
The law on power of this Court to dismiss a writ petition on ground of delay and laches alone is well settled. When any individual belatedly approaches the writ court after sleeping over his/her rights for a long time, such person has no right to the extraordinary relief of writ. Definitely, there is no fixed period of limitation prescribed for filing of a writ petition and hence, such discretion must be exercised with utmost caution and should be used as per peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. However, it does not mean that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court can be used to revive or resurrect a dead cause of action and if the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, this Court has the discretion and power to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to draw attention to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu : (2014) 4 SCC 108, wherein it was held as under:-
“16.Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.”
From the foregoing, it is evident that while no statutory limitation period is prescribed for instituting a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, undue delay and laches may nonetheless defeat the claim of the petitioner, as the same may cause prejudice to the opposite party.
The explanation sought to be offered by the petitioner for the delay is that it had made representations to the respondents and had approached this Court earlier by way of W.P.(C) 4748/2026. It is settled law that the making of representations does not extend the period of limitation, nor can it revive a claim which has otherwise become stale.
The mere fact that the representation of the petitioner was subsequently rejected cannot be construed as giving rise to a fresh cause of action so as to overcome the delay in questioning the original recovery. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the petitioner’s failure to challenge the recovery when the deductions were first affected in 2023.
However, instead of approaching this Court at the relevant time, the petitioner chose to remain silent and approached this Court for the first time only in March 2026, by way of W.P.(C) No. 4748/2026. The present petition has been filed on 23.10.2026, that is, after a lapse of more than approximately three years from the date of the recovery letters. Apart from a bare assertion, no representation made by the petitioner prior to 26.02.2026 has been placed on record.
The petitioner contends that the time should be counted from the impugned letter dated 29.08.2026. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The said letter was issued only because this Court, vide order dated 10.04.2026, directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation. The said order left all rights and contentions of the parties’ open and did not decide the petitioner’s claim or condone the delay.
Further, the filing of W.P.(C) No. 4748/2026 does not assist the petitioner. In the said petition, the petitioner accepted the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 27.05.2022 and sought a refund of only ₹4,70,37,235/-. However, in the present petition, the petitioner has taken a different stand, contending that the Office Memorandum are not applicable at all, and seeks a refund of the entire amount of ₹9,05,81,773/-. In any event, even the earlier petition was filed only in March 2026, that is, nearly three years after the recovery letters were issued. The filing of representations and successive proceedings cannot, by itself, explain the delay or revive a stale claim.
In view of the inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching this Court, no ground is made out for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The pending application also stands disposed of.