Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 7 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010238912025
2025:GAU-AS:15054
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6266/2025
SALAM MIA
S/O- LATE ABDUL HAQUE, R/O- VILL- KABARIBOND, PATHERKANDI,
DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN- 788724
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD (BUILDING)
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
BUILDING DIVISION
SRIBHUMI
P.O.- SRIBHUMI
DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN- 788710
4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. AK Azad
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. B Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam and
Standing Counsel, PWD
Mr. A Chaliha, Standing Counsel
Finance Department
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
07.11.2025
Heard Mr. AK Azad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. Mr. A Chaliha, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf
of the Finance Department and Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl. AG, Assam who
appears on behalf of the PWD.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-payment of an amount of
Rs.1,91,353/- against the various works executed by him. It is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner was issued various repairing works by issuing
different work orders by the respondents in the PWD on various dates during
the period 1992 to 2005. The petitioner states that the petitioner had duly
completed such works and in that regard liability certificate has also been
enclosed as Annexure-1 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 Public Works Department which, however, is
undated. On the basis thereof, the petitioner submitted representation dated
Page No.# 3/5
22.09.2025 before the Executive Engineer, PWD Building Division, Sribhumi for
release of his dues. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition on 27.10.2025.
3. Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, PWD 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 during the period 1992 to 2005 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 undated
liability certificate has also been issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Building
Division erstwhile Karimganj. Infact such certificate does not appear to be in
accordance with law and protocol.
4. The learned Standing Counsel, PWD 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.
5. 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 more than three decades, from the date when the
work orders were issued. The liability 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 inspire the confidence of this Court to pass directions.
6. This Court finds it appropriate at this stage to refer to the judgment of the
Page No.# 4/5
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
ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such
belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee
Page No.# 5/5
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, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
9. 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. 27.10.2025 till date
be excluded while computing the period of limitation.
10. The instant order, however, shall not prejudice the petitioner in such
proceedings initiated before the competent Civil Court.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
