Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 7 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010187852025
2025:GAU-AS:15048
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5606/2025
RAJIB BARUAH
S/O LATE SABHARAM BARUAH, R/O VILL- DUWARICHIGA GAON, P.O.
AND P.S.- NITAIPUKHARI, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
(PHE), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-36
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE)
SIVASAGAR DIVISION
SIVASAGAR
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-
Page No.# 2/6
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Bora, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel
Mr. A. Chaliha, Standing Counsel
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 07.11.2025
Heard Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel
appears on behalf of the PHE Department and Mr. A. Chaliha, the
learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Finance
Department.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking
appropriate directions upon the respondents to the effect that
the remaining outstanding amount of Rs. 8,83,298/- be paid to
the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. This Court has duly taken note of the materials on record
wherein it is seen that the petitioner claims to have been issued
various work orders sometime in the year 2012 and 2013. It is
also the statement of the petitioner that the said works were
completed and work completion certificates were also issued
Page No.# 3/6
which have been enclosed as Annexure-II (series) to the writ
petition. However, the said amount having not been paid, the
petitioner has approached this Court. There is not a single
explanation, why the petitioner has approached this Court after a
decade seeking the said dues. There is also nothing on record to
show that the respondents have at all acknowledged that the
petitioner was entitled to such payment.
4. In this regard, this Court has also taken note of the
submission of Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the PHE Department who submitted that
when a petitioner approaches this Court seeking a writ for
making payment upon due verification after a long period, it
becomes difficult on the part of the respondents to carry out any
verifications thereby losing valuable right of defence.
5. Mr. A Chaliha, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance
Department submitted that the PHE Department having issued
the work orders are required to verify and when any amount
comes for sanction, then only the Finance Department would
raise objection, calling for the necessary documents.
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
Page No.# 4/6
passage of a decade, from the date when the work orders were
issued, 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.
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 herein below:
"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
Page No.# 5/6
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 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 of India.
9. Accordingly, the instant 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. 19.08.2025 till date be excluded while
computing the period of limitation. The instant order so passed
Page No.# 6/6
shall not prejudice the petitioner in such proceedings.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
