Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Union Of India And 6 Ors on 7 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010235682025
2025:GAU-AS:15052
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6213/2025
SARBANANDA BORA
S/O- PUHI RAM BORA, R/O- VILL.- NEAR KAMPUR H S SCHOOL, KAMPUR
KALYANPUR, P.O. AND P.S. KAMPUR, PIN- 782426, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
MINISTRY OF JAL SHAKTI E-GOVERNANCE CELL, 6TH FLOOR CABIN,
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD BASISTHA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781029.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI-29.
5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCES CIRCLE
NAGAON-782120.
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Page No.# 2/5
MORIGAON WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
MORIGAON
PIN- 782105.
7:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
JAGIROAD
WATER RESOURCE SUB-DIVISION
PIN- 782410
For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. K.K. Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Tinglung, Standing Counsel
Ms. P. Rabha, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 07.11.2025
Heard Mrs. K.K. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner. Ms. P. Rabha, the learned counsel
appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms.
Tinglung, the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources
Department appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a
direction upon the respondents to release the outstanding
amount of Rs. 1,16,504/-.
3. This Court duly takes note of that the claims so made by the
petitioner is in respect to certain work orders issued in the year
2012 and that the bills were duly submitted in the years 2013,
Page No.# 3/5
2014 and 2016. It is the further claim of the petitioner that
certain amount has been paid, however, an amount of Rs.
1,16,504/- remains outstanding. It is under such circumstances,
the present writ petition has been filed on 17.10.2025 after the
petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 on 22.05.2023.
4. In this regard, this Court has also taken note of the
submission of Ms. Tinglung, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Water Resources 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. 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 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
Page No.# 4/5
to the petitioner.
6. 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
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
Page No.# 5/5
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, this Court is not inclined to exercise
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Accordingly, the instant 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. 17.10.2025 till date be excluded while
computing the period of limitation. The instant order so passed
shall not prejudice the petitioner in such proceedings.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
