Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010262602024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1466/2025 AGARWAL STORE AND ANR A PROPRIETORIAL FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT H.O. RADHA RANI MARKEK, T.R.P. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781001, ASSAM 2: DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF AGARWAL STORE STORE S/O LT. SATYANARAYAN AGARWAL R/O CHINMOY COMPLEX A.T. ROAD GUWAHATI-781001 ASSA VERSUS THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DRINKING WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND 2 ORS THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DRINKING WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD (JAL BOARD) 1ST FLOOR, TRIPTI TOWER GANESHGURI, GUWAHATI 781005 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DRINKING WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD (JAL BOARD) (GMDW AND SB) 1ST FLOOR TRIPTI TOWER GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 781005 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZOO ROAD WATER SUPPLY SCHEME GUWAHATI JAL BOARD HAYAMAMA PATH R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI-2 Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B PHUKAN, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, JAL BOARD, Linked Case : Review.Pet./24/2025 AGARWAL STORE AND ANR A PROPRIETORIAL FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT H.O. RADHA RANI MARKEK T.R.P. ROAD GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM 2: DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF AGARWAL STORE STORE S/O LT. SATYANARAYAN AGARWAL R/O CHINMOY COMPLEX A.T. ROAD GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM VERSUS THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DRINKING WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND 2 ORS THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DRINKING WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD (JAL BOARD) 1ST FLOOR TRIPTI TOWER GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 781005 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DRINKING WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD (JAL BOARD) (GMDW AND SB) 1ST FLOOR TRIPTI TOWER GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 781005 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZOO ROAD WATER SUPPLY SCHEME GUWAHATI JAL BOARD HAYAMAMA PATH R.G. BARUAH ROAD Page No.# 3/6 GUWAHATI-24 ------------ Advocate for : MR. B PHUKAN Advocate for : SC JAL BOARD appearing for THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DRINKING WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND 2 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 26.05.2025 The review petition No. 24/2025 being intrinsically connected with the IA(C)/1466/2025, both the applications are taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. I have heard Shri B. Phukan, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Shri S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Jal Board for the respondents. 3. The review has been sought for with regard to an order dated 09.12.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C)/7331/2019. By the aforesaid order, while this Court had directed the respondents to make payment of the contractual dues to the petitioner, there was no direction for payment of interest. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that the amount of Rs.1,56,392/- was received by him, no amount on the head of interest has been paid, which was also left out by this Court and accordingly, the review has been filed. 4. When the review application had come up for consideration on 13.04.2025, Shri Phukan, learned counsel for the applicants had informed that an IA was filed along with the review, which was not listed and accordingly, the IA(C)/1466/2025 has been listed today along with the review petition. 5. Both the applications for review and the grounds taken and the reasons Page No.# 4/6 cited in the IA for delay in the review have been considered. 6. Though in a writ proceeding, there is no strict application of the Limitation Act, 1963, the aspect of laches would still be there. In this connection, it will be beneficial to refer upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 wherein the following observations have been made: “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. ...” 7. It is in this context that the delay was sought to be explained, which could be done by having sufficient explanation in the review application and no separate IA is mandatory. Be that as it may, certain grounds have been assigned for explaining the delay. 8. Shri Bora, learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that from the enclosures to the IA, it would appear that the same petitioners had filed a second writ petition being WP(C)/5536/2024 praying for interest on the aforesaid amount. The said writ petition was however disposed of on 13.10.2024 on withdrawal. He has however submitted that from a reading of Page No.# 5/6 the order, it would appear that elaborate discussions were made by the learned Court and when the writ petition was about to be dismissed, the same was withdrawn. He has also submitted that this important fact has not been disclosed in the review petition. 9. The aforesaid fact of filing a second writ petition which culminated in an order of dismissal on withdrawal is not disputed in the Bar. However, Shri Phukan, learned counsel for the applicants, has submitted that the aspect of entitlement for interest has not been adjudicated. 10. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 11. A bare reading of the order dated 30.10.2024 would show that not only the earlier writ petition being WP(C)/7331/2019 and the order passed thereon dated 19.12.2022 were considered, the learned Single Judge had also discussed the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 more specifically, Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Act and had come to a tentative finding that the petition was not maintainable and after such observation, a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the writ petition. This Court has also noticed that vide the order dated 30.10.2024 by which the subsequent WP(C)/5536/2024 was dismissed on withdrawal, no liberty was sought for. 12. Apart from the contours to be followed by a Review Court which are circumscribed and guided by Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, this Court is of the opinion that the ground was specifically raised in the subsequent writ petition which was dismissed on withdrawal without any liberty. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the filing of a review after such an order would not be Page No.# 6/6 maintainable. This Court has also noticed that in the review application which was instituted in the year 2025, there was no reference at all of the second writ petition being WP(C)/5536/2024 and the order dated 30.10.2024 which would also indicate that there was no candid disclosure of the petitioner of the relevant facts. After dismissal of the second writ petition which has attained finality, the said issue cannot be raised by way of seeking a review of an order passed in the first writ petition being WP(C)/7331/2019. In view of the above, this Court has no other alternative but to dismiss the application for review. 14. Review application as well as the IA accordingly stand dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant