Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 3 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010164182025
2025:GAU-AS:14925
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4454/2025
AJAY AGARWALLA
S/O LATE ONKARMAL AGARWALLA, R/O FLAT NO. 201, BLOCK-C,
SPANISH GARDEN, RGB ROAD, P.O.- GUWAHATI, P.S.-DISPUR, ASSAM-
781005
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWHAATI-781006
ASSAM
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE)
WATER
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
4:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (PHE)
UPPER ASSAM ZONE
NAGAON
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PHE)
HOJAI DIVISION
Page No.# 2/5
HOJAI
NAGAON DISTRICT-78243
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Ms. B Chowdhury
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. I Choudhury, Standing Counsel
PHE Department
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
03.11.2025
Heard Ms. B. Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of
the PHE Department.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-payment of an amount of
Rs.15,34,186/- against the various works done by the petitioner. It is the case of
the petitioner that the petitioner was issued various work orders by the
respondents in the PHE Department on 20.07.2010, 29.02.2012, 13.03.2012,
09.10.2012 as well as on 08.11.2012. The petitioner states that the petitioner
had duly completed such works and in that regard Work Completion Certificate
has been enclosed to the writ petition. However, nothing appears on record to
show that the petitioner had taken steps. On the other hand, it is seen that the
petitioner slept over his claims till he was issued a liability certificate by the
Executive Engineer of the PHE Department which, however, is undated. On the
basis thereof, the petitioner submitted representation. The materials enclosed to
Page No.# 3/5
the writ petition reveals that certain communications were also addressed by
the Office of the Chief Engineer to the Executive Engineer on 16.05.2015,
05.05.2017, 24.05.2022, 27.05.2022, 01.06.2024, 24.02.2025 and 19.04.2024.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 24.07.2025.
3. The record reveals that this Court issued notice, however, the respondents
have not filed their affidavits.
4. Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing Counsel, PHE Department submits that
it is very difficult to file the affidavit in the matter of the present kind, taking
into account that the works in question were awarded in the year 2010 and
2012 and the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2025. The
learned Standing Counsel further submitted that it is not known as to on what
basis such liability certificate has also been issued by the Executive Engineer,
PHE Department.
5. The learned Standing Counsel, PHE Department submitted that this is a case
where a valuable defense of the respondent authorities have been sought to be
nullified on account of the delay in approaching this Court.
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 had
approached this Court after a decade, from the date when the work orders were
issued. The libilaty certificate so issued is also undated. Under such
circumstances, if directions are 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. The liability certificate issued by the Executive Engineer does not
Page No.# 4/5
inspire the confidence of this Court to pass directions.
7. This Court finds it appropriate 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.
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
Page No.# 5/5
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."
8. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
10. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein is given the liberty to approach the
competent Civil Court, if so permissible under the law and the period during
which the instant writ petition has been pending i.e. w.e.f. 24.07.2025 till date
be excluded while computing the period of limitation.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
