Madan Borah vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 9032 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Madan Borah vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 1 December, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                    Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010030942018




                                                             undefined

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1096/2018

         MADAN BORAH
         S/O,. LT. SIKIRAM BORAH, VILL. BORACHUK, P.O. CHELAGURI, VIA
         JAMUGURIHAT, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
         THROUGH- THE SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ANIMAL
         HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.

         2:THE DIRECTOR

          ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT.
          ASSAM
          CHANIKUTHI
          GUWAHATI

         3:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE

          INTENSIVE CATTLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (ICDP)
          TEZPUR
          MISSION CHARIALI
          P.O. TEZPUR
          DIST. SONITPUR
          ASSA
                                                                      Page No.# 2/7

                                     BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the petitioner (s)     : Mr. R. Mazumder, Advocate

For the respondent (s)     : Mr. J. K. Goswami, SC AH &Vet. Deptt.

  Date on which judgment is reserved           : NA

  Date of pronouncement of judgment            : 01.12.2025

  Whether the pronouncement is of the
  Operative part of the judgment?              : NA

  Whether the full judgment has been
  Pronounced?                                    : Yes



                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. R. Mazumder, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to make payment of an amount of Rs.1,61,200/- to the petitioner along with adequate interest from the date of submission of the bill till the date of making payment.

3. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner claims that the work order was issued on 28.01.1991 for carrying out various Page No.# 3/7

repairing works. The total value of the work order was Rs.1,61,200/-. It is the further claim of the petitioner that in the year 1993, the petitioner completed the work, but he had not received the payment. In that regard, a communication was issued to the Minister, Veterinary, Assam on 25.03.1993, but the said did not meet any favourable response. The petitioner thereupon waited for another 10 years and on 14.11.2003 issued a legal notice claiming the amount of Rs.1,61,200/- along with interest.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the meantime, there was a criminal investigation which led to a charge sheet and registration of a case being Special Case No.22(C)/1997, re- numbered as Special Case No.55/2004 wherein the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of the judgment and order dated 10.11.2016. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioner issued another representation on 31.10.2017 claiming the said amount of Rs.1,61,200/-. The said amount, however, having not been paid, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition in the year 2018.

5. Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that it is next to impossible on the part of the Respondent Authorities to carry out any verification Page No.# 4/7

taking into account that the alleged work order was issued in the year 1991, and thereupon, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition in the year 2018. He, therefore, submitted that any directions so passed, for carrying out the verification and then pay the petitioner cannot also be implemented in view of non-availability of the records. In addition to that, Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further submitted that no material has also been placed as to whether the petitioner has completed the work in question, and under such circumstances, this is not a case where this Court ought to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. This Court having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents is of the opinion that the petitioner having

approached this Court after a passage of decades, from the date when the work orders were issued and there being no Work Completion Certificate also enclosed, any direction passed in the instant writ petition for verification and then to pay would seriously affect the rights of the respondent authorities. There is also no materials submitted on record that since the completion of the works the respondents have admitted from time to time the dues payable to the petitioner. This Court finds it appropriate Page No.# 5/7

at this stage to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board And Others v. T.T Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108,

wherein the Supreme Court clearly observed that a litigant cannot be permitted to behave like "Kumbhakarna". Paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:

"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.

Page No.# 6/7

17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with "Kumbhakarna" or for that matter "Rip Van Winkle". In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."

7. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as there is no admission on the part of the respondents in any manner whatsoever in respect to the claim of the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Court therefore dismisses the instant writ Page No.# 7/7

petition on the ground that this is not a fit case for being entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant