M/S Kumar Construction vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2549 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 5611 of 2019
                         ........

M/s Kumar Construction .... ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondents/State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV.

........

06/11.07.2022.

This Court is displeased with the respondent authorities, who have not paid the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- to the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner for the work done in execution of barbed wire over the boundary of "Governor House" in the year 2009 between the period 25.03.2009 to 18.08.2009.

Though the Additional Secretary, Governor's Secretariat vide Letter No. 4439 dated 25.08.2010 has called for a report from the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Division-1, but till date, nothing has been done.

The petitioner has submitted that in honour of the "Governor House", he persuaded the Government to pay the amount, but the Government has not paid the same and ultimately the petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 11.10.2019 and even then, the respondents have not paid the same.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV has submitted, that the petitioner has filed the writ petition after a grave delay as limitation prescribed for money suit is three years, as such, this writ petition may be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 at Paragraph-15 & 16.

15. In State of M.P. and others etc. etc. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and others etc. etc.[9] the Court observed that it is well settled that power of the High Court to issue an

appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. It has been further stated therein that if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay and laches stating that resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in injustice.

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 scrutinize 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. 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 scrutinize 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.

This Court has considered the judgment. The delay is not because of the petitioner, rather the delay is only because of lackluster attitude of the respondent authorities. The Apex Court has not stated in these paragraphs that all the writ petitions should be dismissed, rather the Apex Court has considered that it is well settled that power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic.

This Court has examined the record. It appears that for the fencing of the boundary wall of the Governor House, an order has been passed by the concerned officer to put a Barbed Wire, which is very essential for the safety and security of His Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand.

It is the responsibility of the Junior Engineer or the concerned officer to prepare the bill and bill has to be honoured by the concerned officer.

This State particularly the Engineering Department, where engineers are not discharging their duty, though such works are to be done by the Engineering Department, but they are also not honouring the work done in the Governor House, as such, this Court consider

the judgment and direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to initiate a departmental inquiry against all the Executive Engineers, who were posted since the year 2009 till date in accordance with law for such lapse with regard to work done if any in the "Governor House".

The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand should consider that why this money has not been paid and why the all concerned Executive Engineers have not inquired about the same. This is not only disrespect towards the Governor House, but it also shows the method of working of the Engineering Department in the State of Jharkhand.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State has taken a plea that this writ petition has been taken for the first time before this Court, as such, one adjournment may be granted so as to file counter- affidavit.

Such plea is not available to the respondent/State in the writ petition filed in the year 2019, as two copies of writ petitions have been served upon the office of the Advocate General in advance before filing, i.e. one for the office of the learned Advocate General and another for the concerned Department. It is expected that if a writ petition is filed and copy has been served upon the State, it is incumbent upon the State to come up with statement of facts for filing their response. There is no such law which provides that State will be invited by the High Court to file their response even after serving copy of the writ petition in advance even after three years approximately like the present one. This trend is only developed in the State of Jharkhand to delay the disposal of the litigation at the whims of the erring respondent authorities.

This Court has passed several orders, directing the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to issue necessary direction to the respondent authority with regard to providing statement of facts to the counsel for the State, so as to assist this Court at the time of first listing of the case under the heading of fresh filing.

The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand should issue necessary direction, that why the respondent authorities are waiting for the direction of the Court, rather once a copy of writ petition is served upon them, it is the duty of the State to provide statement of fact to the State Counsel, as cases are pending because of lackluster attitude of the concerned respondent officer.

In present case, the copy of the writ petition was served upon learned counsel for the State on 11.10.2019, even then the Executive Engineers and Department of Building Construction has not taken cognizance of the matter, as such, in view of the matter, the Secretary, Department of Building Construction, Government of Jharkhand and the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Division - 1, Ranchi NH Office, Ranchi shall appear before this Court in person on 12.07.2022 at 10:30 A.M.

List this case on 12.07.2022 under the same heading. Let a copy of order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, the Secretary, Department of Building Construction, Government of Jhakhand and also a copy of order be communicated to the Governor's House for kind perusal of the Hon'ble His Excellency and the Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand through e-mail / FAX.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-