Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The petitioner, A.Y. Suryanarayana, sought a writ of mandamus against the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation regarding Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Bonds for land surrendered for road widening. The petitioner's father and the petitioner had made representations to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation on 09.07.2014, 06.12.2017, 20.09.2018, 23.09.2019, 31.05.2022, and 11.12.2023 requesting TDR Bonds. The Municipal Corporation issued endorsements dated 23.11.2017, 22.12.2023, and 21.01.2026, directing submission of registered deed documents, notice, consent letter, and family member certificate. The petitioner eventually filed Writ Petition No. 4042 of 2026 with an interlocutory application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking direction to consider the representation dated 11.12.2023 and to provisionally issue TDR Bonds pending disposal of the writ petition. The core legal issue was whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches due to repeated representations and non-approach to court for over a decade, and whether repeated representations could create a fresh cause of action. The petitioner contended that non-consideration of representations and non-release of TDR Bonds was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The respondent Municipal Corporation submitted the endorsements indicating that it had asked for documents and that the petitioner kept making representations without approaching the court. The Court referred to Supreme Court decisions in New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh, State of Tripura v. Arabinda Chakraborthy, Union of India v. Chaman Rana, and Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., holding that although no limitation is prescribed for a writ petition under Article 226, it must be filed within a reasonable time; repeated representations do not explain delay; once a representation is rejected, making another on similar lines does not give a fresh cause of action; and the High Court should dismiss at threshold if the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. The Court noted that the first representation was made in 2014 and the petitioner and his father only made representations from time to time till 2023 without approaching the court, and therefore the claim was hopelessly barred by delay and laches. The writ petition was dismissed as bereft of merit; no order as to costs was made; and interlocutory applications were closed. The decision favored the respondents.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Delay and Laches - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The writ petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation to release Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Bonds for road-widening land, based on representations made from 2014 to 2023. The Court held that repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation and that parties are not entitled to make representations year after year without approaching the court; the writ petition was dismissed as hopelessly barred by delay and laches, and no order as to costs was made (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus for release of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Bonds was barred by delay and laches due to repeated representations from 2014 to 2023 without approaching the court.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as bereft of any merit and hopelessly barred by delay and laches. No order as to costs was made. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stood closed in terms of the order.
Law Points
- Repeated representations do not extend limitation or give fresh cause of action
- writ petition under Article 226 must be filed within reasonable time
- delay and laches bar relief
- parties not entitled to make representations year after year without approaching court
Case Details
2026 LawText (AP) (02) 18
Writ Petition No. 4042/2026
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
T V P Sai Vihari, Sri Sk. Rafi, Sri T.V.P. Sai Kumar, Sri Goli G.V.S. Sai, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Vijayawada Municipal Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation in not considering representations and not releasing Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Bonds as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the second respondent Vijayawada Municipal Corporation to issue and release TDR Bonds in favour of the petitioner for the road-acquired land, and to consider and dispose of the representation dated 11.12.2023 within a time frame or alternatively issue TDR Bonds provisionally.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's father and the petitioner had made repeated representations from 2014 to 2023 requesting TDR Bonds for land surrendered for road widening, but the respondent Corporation did not release the TDR Bonds, prompting the filing of the writ petition.
Previous Decisions
No prior court decisions mentioned. The respondent Corporation had issued administrative endorsements dated 23.11.2017, 22.12.2023, and 21.01.2026 requesting submission of documents such as registered deed documents, notice, consent letter, and family member certificate.
Issues
Whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches due to repeated representations from 2014 to 2023 without approaching the court.
Whether repeated representations could create a fresh cause of action and extend the period of limitation for filing a writ petition under Article 226.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner contended that the non-consideration of representations and non-release of TDR Bonds by the respondent Corporation was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The respondent Vijayawada Municipal Corporation submitted three endorsements dated 23.11.2017, 22.12.2023, and 21.01.2026 showing that it had responded to the representations by directing submission of documents, and argued that repeated representations did not explain the delay in approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi
Repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation or create a fresh cause of action. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be filed within a reasonable time, and parties are not entitled to make representations year after year without approaching the court. If the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss the petition at the threshold and not relegate the petitioner to file further representations.
Judgment Excerpts
It is settled law that the parties are not entitled to make Representations year after year without approaching the Court.
The facts on record would clearly indicate that the Writ Petitioner and his father were only making Representations from time to time since 2014 without approaching this Court.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is bereft of any merit besides being hopelessly hit by delay and laches.
This Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Procedural History
The petitioner's father made a representation on 09.07.2014 to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation for release of TDR Bonds. The respondent Corporation issued an endorsement on 23.11.2017 requesting registered deed documents. The petitioner made further representations on 06.12.2017, 20.09.2018, 23.09.2019, 31.05.2022, and 11.12.2023. In response to the representation dated 11.12.2023, the respondent issued an endorsement on 22.12.2023 directing submission of notice, consent letter, and family member certificate. A further endorsement was issued on 21.01.2026. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4042 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India along with an interlocutory application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking consideration of the representation and provisional issue of TDR Bonds. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the writ petition on 23.02.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 226, Article 300-A
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 151
