Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 10 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010236192025
2025:GAU-AS:15213
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6326/2025
ALTAF AHMED
SON OF LATE KUTUB UDDIN AHMED, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-
DIGHALIATI, P.O-, DIGHALIATI, P.S.- ROHA, DIST- NAGAON, PIN-782446,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, PIN- 781006,
DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
BIMALA PRASHAD SALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
PIN-781036
ASSAM
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
PWD DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
PIN-781006
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
BORDOWA RURAL ROAD SUB-DIVISION
Page No.# 2/6
BARDOWA
PIN- 782442
DIST- NAGAON ASSA
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.P. Borthakur, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Chutia, Standing Counsel
Mr. M. Bhuiyan, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 10.11.2025
Heard Mr. P.P. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner. Ms. S. Chutia, the learned Standing
Counsel, Fishery Department appears on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. M. Bhuiyan, the learned counsel
appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking a direction upon the respondents for payment of an
amount of Rs. 16,64,062/- against the tender work dated
04.05.2012.
3. It is relevant to take note of from the materials on record
that pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender, the petitioner was
issued a Letter of Acceptance for development of Sibasthan
Page No.# 3/6
Putakollong Beel under RIDF-XVI, (Package-2, Gr-B) on
26.09.2012. Subsequent thereto, the formal work order was
issued on 01.10.2012 wherein it was categorically mentioned
that the petitioner was to complete the work within 150 days
from the date of issuance of the formal work order. The record
further reveals that the petitioner completed the work on
31.05.2016 and inspection was carried out on 07.09.2016.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner represented before the Respondent
Authorities on various occasions and on 29.08.2023, issued a
legal notice. As no payment thereupon was made, the petitioner
has therefore approached this Court.
5. In this regard, this Court has also taken note of the
submission of Ms. S. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Fishery 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.
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
Page No.# 4/6
nine years of alleged completion of the project and after more
than a decade from the date the work order was 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 work, 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. 22.10.2025 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
