Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 06 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010541072026
+ W.P.(C) 16655/2026 & CM APPL. 77909/2026
NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arjun Raghvendra M. Mr.
Stephin George, Mr. Divyansh
Jain & Mr. Paritosh Jain, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Mr.
Laqshyaa Saluja, Advs with
Mr. Nabab Singh, AE, PWD for
PWD.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, SPC with
Mr. Amrit Acharya, GP for R-
3.
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16655/2026 Page 1 of 7
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;”
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner is a works contractor and was
awarded the work of developing the East Delhi Campus of Guru
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16655/2026 Page 2 of 7
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16655/2026 Page 3 of 7
6. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner has approached
this Court by way of the present petition.
7. 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.
8. Arguments heard and the material placed on record perused.
9. 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.
10. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16655/2026 Page 4 of 7
11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16655/2026 Page 5 of 7
period of limitation, nor can it revive a claim which has otherwise
become stale.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16655/2026 Page 6 of 7
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.
18. 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.
19. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches. The pending application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 6, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16655/2026 Page 7 of 7