Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010256952025 2025:GAU-AS:16475 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6715/2025 M/S GREEN VALLEY INDUSTRY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS SMTI. GOPAL PAL AND SMTI. MITHU DE, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAIN ROAD, TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM- 784001. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, DISPUR, ASSAM 2:CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781003. 3:SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE (IRRIGATION) TEZPUR ASSAM 4:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NADUAR DIVISION (IRRIGATION) SOOTIA ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Ganguly, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Upadhaya, Standing Counsel Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 28.11.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N. Upadhaya, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent Irrigation Department to release an outstanding amount of Rs. 9,60,170/-. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that several work orders were issued for supply of RCC Hume Pipes with Collars for CAD works at BIS for the year 2017–2018. The said work orders were issued on 04.01.2018; 06.01.2018; and 08.01.2018, and the materials on record reveal that the said works were completed on 27.01.2018. It is the further case of the petitioner that out of the total amount of Rs. 17,70,875/-, an amount of Rs. 8,10,705/- was released to the petitioner sometime in the year 2019, leaving a balance amount of Rs. 9,60,170/- still unpaid. 3. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and do not find any good justification, as to why, the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of 6 (six) years from the Page No.# 3/5 date on which the petitioner claims to be entitled to the amount. 4. Mr. N. Upadhaya, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department submitted that it is very difficult to file the affidavit in the matter of the present kind, taking into account that the works in question were awarded in the year 2018 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2025. 5. The learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department submitted that this is a case where a valuable defense of the Respondent Authorities have been sought to be nullified on account of the delay in approaching this Court. 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 had approached this Court after period of 6 (six) years, from the date when the petitioner claims to have received the part payment. There is no valid justification provided. It is the further opinion of this Court that if directions are passed in the instant writ petition for verification and then to pay, it would seriously affect the rights of the Respondent Authorities inasmuch as the Respondent Authorities may not have records to verify. 7. This Court finds it appropriate at this stage to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Page No.# 4/5 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 hereinbelow: “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 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 Page No.# 5/5 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 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. 18.11.2025 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant