Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010199992023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5246/2023 SMT. RUNU HAZARIKA D/O BONGSHIDHAR HAZARIKA, PRINCIPAL, ITC MY FAIR LADY TRAINING CENTRE 15, SATYANATH BORA LANE, DIGHALIPUKHURI, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMEN TRAINING, ASSAM, REHABARI, GUWAHATI-781008 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE LTD. SARUMATARIA DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMEN TRAINING ASSAM REHABARI GUWAHATI-781008 4:THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR NATIONAL SCHEDULED CASTES FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NSFDC Page No.# 2/4 14TH FLOOR SCOPE MINAR CORE '1' AND '2' NORTH TOWER LAXMI NAGAR NEW DELHI DELHI-11009 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY, MS. N D SARMA,Z R MAJUMDAR,MR. S K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, C.G.C.,MR. K GOGOI,MR R DHAR (R 2),SC, EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMAN TRAINING,MR S P DAS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.07.2026 Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.Also heard Shri R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, WPT&BC and Shri S.P. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Employment and Craftsman Training. Shri K. Gogoi, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 4. 2. The instant writ petition relates to a claim for bills submitted by the petitioner.It is the projected case that the petitioner was entrusted with the job to impart training to 30 numbers of Scheduled Caste Youths for a period of 6 (six) monthsvide an order dated 28.07.2010, which she had successfully completed. Accordingly, bills were raised out of which 50% was also paid.However, the balance was not paid. The petitioner claims to have submitted representations in the years 2012, 2015 and 2018, even whereafter, no action was taken to clear the bills and accordingly, the instant petition has been filed. Page No.# 3/4 3. Ms. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the completion of the work and therefore, the amount is a legitimate due and legally entitled to by her client. 4. On the other hand, Shri Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel has raised the objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches.He has said that the cause of action, if any, had arisen in the year 2010 and the approach to the Writ Court is in the year 2023. He has submitted that filing of representations would not extend the limitation and in any case, the last representation is of the year 2018 and after 5 years, thereafter, the writ petition was filed. 5. Shri Gogoi, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 while endorsing the legal submission advanced by his colleague, Mr. Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that his client does not have any role in the lis.Similarly, Shri Das, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that his client does not have any role in the case. 6. The claim is for release of bills for certain works alleged to have been done by the petitioner in respect of an order dated 28.07.2010. While there may not be any dispute with the completion of the work, what is intriguing is the gross and inordinate delay in approaching the Court. 7. While it is trite law that the Limitation Act, 1963 per se would not have a strict application, the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being equitable in nature, the conduct of the party in approaching this Court including the aspect of due diligence would be relevant Page No.# 4/4 factors. In this connection, one may rely upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 wherein the aforesaid aspect has been elaborately explained. “21. Learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art 226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. The court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable...” 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that on the aspect of gross and inordinate delay and laches, the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief. 9. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant