Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeal Due to Delay in University of Delhi vs. Union of India (17 December 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1180

Judges: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Can a public institution’s appeal be dismissed due to significant delays, even when the institution claims the matter involves public interest? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the University of Delhi and the Union of India. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in dismissing an appeal due to a delay of 916 days, focusing on the reasons for the delay and the potential impact on public interest. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The University of Delhi (the appellant) challenged a decision by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from 12 May 2011, which permitted M/s Young Builders (P) Ltd. (respondent no. 13) to construct a high-rise group housing society within the University campus’s control zone. This permission was granted on land leased to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) after segregating two hectares from the total three hectares acquired for a metro station. The University argued that this construction violated the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 (MPD-2021) and was against public interest, given the area’s historical and educational significance. The University also contended that the land’s change of character from public to private commercial use was illegal. The DMRC, however, maintained that the housing project aimed to generate revenue as per government policy, with necessary approvals for land conversion.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the University’s writ petition on 27 April 2015, citing delay and laches, and noting that the DDA is the master of the Master Plan. The court also observed that necessary approvals were obtained for the housing project, and the change in land use was permissible, referring to the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench judgment in Adil Singh vs. Union of India (2010) 171 DLT 748. The court held that since it was a policy decision by a government body, and the University failed to prove any illegality, judicial interference was not justified. Following this, the University formed a committee to decide the next course of action. The Executive Council decided to file an intra-court appeal. The appeal was filed with a delay of 916 days. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on 29 October 2018, solely on the grounds of delay, without considering the merits.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, which allows courts to condone delays if there is sufficient cause. The court also discusses the Master Plan of Delhi – 2021 (‘MPD’) and the Zonal Development Plan for Zone-“C” (Civil Lines Zone) of the DDA. The court also refers to Section 21 of the Delhi University Act, 1922, which deals with the constitution of the Executive Council of the University. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is also mentioned in the judgment.

Arguments

Appellant (University of Delhi):

• The construction permission for a group housing society on land owned by the Ministry of Defence violates MPD-2021 and is against public interest because of the University’s historical and educational significance.
• The land, acquired for a public purpose (metro rail project), has been illegally diverted to private commercial use by auctioning it to a private builder.
• The construction of high-rise buildings in the control zone of the University is banned under MPD-2021.
• The project site is close to ladies’ hostels, raising privacy concerns, and the construction will impede access to the University.
• The University authorities were diligent but needed to consult with all stakeholders, causing the delay.
• The expression “sufficient cause” is elastic and should enable courts to apply the law of limitation meaningfully.
• The builders have not started construction, so the delay should not prevent consideration of public interest issues.
• The land was acquired for public purpose at public expense but is now being given to a private builder for profit.

Respondent (DMRC and M/s Young Builders):

• The DMRC had surplus land after constructing the metro station, and the housing project was intended to generate revenue as per government policy.
• The authorities formally approved the change of land use for residential purposes.
• The delay of 916 days is inordinate and amounts to laches.
• The principle of “sufficient cause” does not apply due to the significant delay.
• The writ petition itself was filed with a delay of 7-8 years, and the LPA was also delayed.
• The University’s reasons for delay, such as the Vice-Chancellor’s vacancy, are not acceptable.
• The respondent No. 13 has already spent Rs. 233 crores on the lease and approvals, and the project is being hampered due to the delay.
• The project is in line with the Government of India’s policy to generate resources through property development.
• Interference at this stage would have a serious impact on the projects undertaken.
• The Union of India, the land’s owner, does not object to the project.

Intervenors:

• Six girl hostels are near the project site, and high-rise apartments would compromise the privacy of the residents.
• A 1943 government letter stated that no tall buildings should be erected inside the Delhi University Campus.
• The Zonal Development Plan for Zone-“C” recognizes the historical buildings in the Delhi University Campus and restricts tall buildings.

Innovativeness of the argument: The University argued that the delay should be condoned as the construction had not started and the land was originally acquired for public purpose at public expense but is now being given to a private builder for profit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the University of Delhi on the ground of delay of 916 days.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeals filed by the University. The Court found that the University failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the 916-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court noted that the University was aware of the developments since 2005, and the delay in filing the writ petition itself indicated a lack of diligence. The Court also considered that the DMRC had already received a significant amount of money from respondent No. 13 for the project and that condoning the delay would be detrimental to public interest. The court stated that the reasons provided by the University did not constitute sufficient cause for the delay.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Katiji & Ors. [1987(2) SCC 107] to discuss the principle of “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay. However, it distinguished the facts of the case, noting that in Katiji, the delay was only four days, whereas, in the present case, it was 916 days.
• The Court referred to M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. Vs. District Board, Bhojpur & Ors. [(1992) 2 SCC 598] to discuss the real test to determine the delay and that the petitioner should come to court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence.
• The Court referred to Postmaster General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr. [1992 (3) SCC 563] to highlight that condonation of delay should not be an automatic benefit for government departments.
• The Court referred to Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 to discuss the power to condone delay if there is sufficient cause.
• The Court referred to Section 21 of the Delhi University Act, 1922 to discuss the constitution of the Executive Council of the University.
• The Court referred to The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to discuss the accessibility concerns.
• The Court referred to Adil Singh vs. Union of India [(2010) 171 DLT 748] as it was referred by the single judge to state that the change in land use was permissible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The primary concern was the inordinate delay of 916 days in filing the appeal, which the Court found was not justified by the reasons provided by the University. The Court also noted that the University had been aware of the developments since 2005 and had not acted diligently. The fact that the DMRC had already received a substantial amount from respondent No. 13 and the potential impact on public projects also weighed against condoning the delay. The Court emphasized that while public interest is an important consideration, it cannot be a substitute for diligence and adherence to the law of limitation.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the explanation for the delay, the conduct of the University, the financial implications, and the public interest involved. The Court noted that the University was not diligent in pursuing the matter, and the delay was not justified. The Court also considered that the DMRC had already received a substantial amount from respondent No. 13 for the project and that condoning the delay would be detrimental to public interest.

The Court considered the explanation for the delay, the conduct of the University, the financial implications, and the public interest involved. The Court noted that the University was not diligent in pursuing the matter, and the delay was not justified. The Court also considered that the DMRC had already received a substantial amount from respondent No. 13 for the project and that condoning the delay would be detrimental to public interest.

“The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ”merits”.”

“The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice — that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts.”

“In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Public institutions are not exempt from the law of limitation and must provide sufficient cause for delays in filing appeals.
• Inordinate delays can lead to the dismissal of appeals, even if public interest is involved.
• The courts will consider the diligence of the parties and the potential impact on the opposite party.
• Government bodies should be diligent and committed to their duties.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a public institution’s appeal can be dismissed due to an inordinate delay in filing, even if the institution claims the matter involves public interest. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the principle of ‘sufficient cause’ should be applied liberally, it cannot be used to justify a lack of diligence or to condone a delay that is not adequately explained. This case reinforces the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and highlights that public bodies are not exempt from its application. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the University of Delhi, upholding the High Court’s decision to reject the appeal due to a 916-day delay. The Court emphasized that the University failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay and that the delay, combined with laches, justified the dismissal. The judgment reinforces the importance of diligence and adherence to the law of limitation, even for public institutions.