M/S Swami Seed Agencies vs Uttar Pradesh Seed Development Corporation & Ors.

$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 04 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010536042026
+ W.P.(C) 16466/2026 & CM APPL. 77284/2026
M/S SWAMI SEEDS AGENCIES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ved Prakash Tripathi,
Advocate.
versus
UTTAR PRADESH SEED DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the
following reliefs:
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of
mandamus, directing the Respondents to release and pay to the
Petitioner the outstanding amount of Rs. 16,10,123/ (Rupees Sixteen
Lakhs Ten Thousand One Hundred Twenty Three only), being the
balance amount of unpaid invoices along with refund of security
deposit, together with interest @ 12% per annum or as applicable in
market trend from the date it became due till the date of actual
realization;
b) Direct the Respondents to compute and pay the accrued interest
on the aforesaid amount within a time-bound period as may be fixed
by this Hon'ble Court;
c) In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above, issue a writ
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the Respondents to consider and decide the Petitioner's
pending representations dated 19.07.2017, 17.08.2017, 28.12.2017,
28.08.2018, 28.09.2019 and 14.05.2024, including Legal Notice
dated 12.07.2024, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:12:06
W.P.(C) 16466/2026 Page 1 of 4

a period of eight weeks, and to release the admitted amount
forthwith in the event the claim is found payable;”
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern
engaged in the supply of certified seeds, and was awarded a tender
floated by the respondents in February, 2003 under the Drought Relief
Scheme. The petitioner supplied seeds between 27.02.2003 and
15.03.2003 against 24 invoices aggregating to ₹75,34,148/-, out of
which ₹60,23,025/- was paid. The petitioner now claims the balance
of ₹15,11,123/- along with the security deposit of ₹99,000/-, that is, a
total of ₹16,10,123/- with interest. It is stated that Respondent No.2
acknowledged the supply vide communication dated 15.07.2003. In
the year 2010, the petitioner was blacklisted, and the order was
subsequently set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.
Thereafter, the petitioner made representations between 19.07.2017
and 14.05.2024. The petitioner then issued a legal notice dated
12.07.2024, to which Respondent No.2 replied on 23.07.2024 seeking
clarification and documents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents, having acknowledged the supply and never having
disputed the claim of the petitioner, could not have withheld the
outstanding amount without assigning any reason or passing a
speaking order. He further submits that the petitioner has continuously
pursued its claim and has given multiple representations to the
respondents in this regard.
4. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present petition has
been filed on 30.06.2026 seeking recovery of an amount which,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:12:06
W.P.(C) 16466/2026 Page 2 of 4

according to the petitioner itself, became due and payable in the year
2003. Thus, the present petition has been filed with an inordinate
delay of more than twenty-three years . No satisfactory explanation
has been offered for this delay.
5. In this regard, we may draw reference 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.”
6. 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 it could cause
prejudice to the opposite party.
7. The only explanation sought to be offered by the petitioner for
the delay is that multiple representations were made to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:12:06
W.P.(C) 16466/2026 Page 3 of 4

respondents. 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.
8. Even otherwise, the first representation relied upon by the
petitioner is dated 19.07.2017, that is, after a period of more than
fourteen years from the date on which the amount allegedly became
due. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished for the inaction of
the petitioner during the intervening period. The blacklisting of the
petitioner in the year 2010 also does not explain the inaction of the
petitioner between 2003 and 2010, or after the blacklisting was set
aside. The claim of the petitioner is, therefore, stale and cannot be
revived by way of a writ petition.
9. 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.
10. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches. The pending application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:12:06
W.P.(C) 16466/2026 Page 4 of 4