01Facts
The petitioner, a works contractor, entered into an agreement with the respondents in August 2017 for development of a university campus.
p. 3 · ¶ 2–3After reimbursing the petitioner ₹4,22,20,322 towards GST in 2020 and 2021, the respondents issued recovery letters in March and April 2023; deductions totalling ₹9,05,81,773 were made from the petitioner’s running bills between June and October 2023.
p. 3 · ¶ 2–3The petitioner made representations and, in March 2026, filed an earlier writ petition seeking a decision on its representation.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4–6Following directions in that proceeding, the respondents rejected the representation on 29 August 2026.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4–6The petitioner then filed the present petition on 23 October 2026, challenging the recovery and seeking repayment.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4–6 · p. 6 · ¶ 1502Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the 2023 recovery and deductions should be declined under Article 226 because of delay and laches.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 9–15, 18ii.Whether the petitioner’s representations, earlier writ petition, or the rejection of its representation on 29 August 2026 provided a fresh cause of action or otherwise sufficiently explained the delay.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 13–1703Law Applied
Article 226 prescribes no fixed limitation period for a writ petition, but the High Court may refuse relief where delay and laches make it inequitable to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
p. 5 · ¶ 10–12In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Supreme Court held that courts must assess the explanation for delay and that inordinate delay may defeat a claim, as delay can prejudice the opposing party and undermine equitable relief.
p. 5 · ¶ 10–12The making of representations does not extend limitation or revive a stale claim, and a later rejection of a representation does not, by itself, create a fresh cause of action to challenge the original decision.
p. 6 · ¶ 13–1404Reasoning
The Court treated the relevant cause of action as arising from the recovery letters issued in March and April 2023 and the deductions made that year.
p. 6 · ¶ 15The petitioner did not approach the Court until March 2026 and filed the present petition in October 2026; the Court found no satisfactory explanation for failing to challenge the recovery earlier and noted that no pre-February 2026 representations had been placed on record.
p. 6 · ¶ 15The directions in the earlier writ petition required the respondents to decide the representation but did not determine the claim or condone the delay; the resulting rejection therefore did not reset the time for challenging the original recovery.
p. 6 · ¶ 16–17The Court also noted that the petitioner’s position and refund claim in the earlier proceeding differed from those advanced in the present petition.
p. 7 · ¶ 1705Holding
The Court held that the petitioner had shown no basis to excuse the inordinate and unexplained delay and declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226.
p. 7 · ¶ 18The petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, and the pending application was disposed of.
p. 7 · ¶ 19Original Court PDF
Nkg Infrastructure Ltd.vsGovernment Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
