Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010255102025 2025:GAU-AS:17249 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7071/2025 ILABANTA SINGHA SON OF LATE KULAJIT SINGHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHAMALIA, .O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR, P.S.- SILCHAR, IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788006. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and othrs REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIATE, DISPUR, ASSAM, PIN 781006. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 781003 3:THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 781003. 4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT SILCHAR DIVISION SILCHAR Page No.# 2/5 78800 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. MR Sodial Advocate for the respondent(s): B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 12.12.2025 Heard Mr. MR Sodial, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. DS Neog, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to make payment of an amount of Rs.1,73,250/-, which the petitioner claims to be entitled on account of supply of Waterproofing Materials (200 Drums) in the year 2010. 3. The material facts which led to the filing of the writ petition is that a work order was issued on 17.02.2010 to the petitioner for supply of Waterproofing Materials (200 Drums). It is the case of the petitioner that the said materials were duly supplied and the petitioner submitted a bill. The bill has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. However, it is noticed that there is neither any date in the bill nor any there is any receipt of the said bill. There is also no material placed before this Court that the petitioner had duly supplied Page No.# 3/5 the materials in question. 4. Be that as it may, in the year 2025 i.e. after a gap of 15 years, the petitioner submitted an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. But the said application was not accepted. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted another representation on 18.10.2005 before the Executive Engineer, (Irrigation), Silchar Division, Cachar for early payment. Having not received any favourable response, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Ms. DS Noeg, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that a perusal of the work order does not show what is the date. The bill which has been submitted also does not bear any date. There is no material on record to show that any supply was made and there was any receipt. Under such circumstances, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In addition to that, the learned counsel also submitted that in the case of the present kind, if there is a direction for making verification and then to pay, it causes great prejudice to the respondents taking into account the respondents loses a valuable defense for non-availability of materials to carry out verification. 7. 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 Page No.# 4/5 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 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 Page No.# 5/5 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. The law afore-stated coupled with the materials placed before this Court do not inspire this Court to issue notice in the present proceedings inasmuch as, the petitioner has not shown any due diligence for approaching this Court. The materials on record is also not satisfactory to even prima facie come to a conclusion about the existence of any work order or supply made. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant