Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010069562023 2025:GAU-AS:14561 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1812/2023 MANOJ PATOWARY S/O- LATE GOPAL CHANDRA PATOWARY, R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O. BELSOR, P.S. BELSOR, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY- 06 2:THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM BASISTHA GHY-29 5:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER LOWER ASSAM ZONE WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. CHANDMARI GHY-03 Page No.# 2/6 6:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NORTHERN ASSAM WATER RESOURCES CIRCLE WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. CHANDMARI GHY-03 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DHUBRI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. S Hoque Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. R Deka, Standing Counsel Water Resource Department Mr. A Chaliha, Standing Counsel Finance Department, Govt. of Assam B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 29.10.2025 Heard Mr. S Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. R Deka, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the Water Resource Department and Mr. A Chaliha, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the Finance Department, Govt. of Assam. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-payment of an amount of Rs.19,22,967/- against the various works done by the petitioner and further Page No.# 3/6 sought for interest @18%. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was issued various work orders by the respondents in the Water Resource Department on 26.08.2010, 07.08.2012 as well as 17.07.2010. The petitioner states that the petitioner had duly completed such works. However, no Work Completion Certificate has been enclosed to the writ petition. Thereupon nothing appears on record to show that the petitioner had taken steps. On the other hand, it is seen that the petitioner slept over his rights till he was issued a liability certificate by the Executive Engineer of the Water Resource Department on 21.12.2022 that an amount of Rs.19,22,967/- is due. On the basis thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation on 30.12.2022 which was received by the respondents on 19.01.2023 and thereupon filed the present writ petition on 27.03.2023. The record reveals that this Court issued notice, however, the respondents have not filed their affidavits. 3. Ms. R Deka, the learned Standing Counsel Water Resource Department submits 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 2010 and 2012 and the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2023. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that it is not known as to on what basis such liability certificate has also been issued by the Executive Engineer, that too, without there being any Work Completion Certificate. 4. The learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource 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. 5. Mr. A Chaliha, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department submitted that the Water Resource Department having issued the work orders are required to verify and when any amount comes for sanction, then only the Page No.# 4/6 Finance Department would raise objection, calling for the necessary documents. 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 a passage of a decade, from the date when the work orders were issued and there being no Work Completion Certificate also enclosed, 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 works the respondents have admitted from time to time the dues payable to the petitioner. The liability certificate issued by the Executive Engineer does not inspire the confidence of this Court to pass directions. 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 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 Page No.# 5/6 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 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.” 7. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction Page No.# 6/6 under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 9. 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. 27.03.2023 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant