JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. A. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Yangerwati, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the termination notice dated 28.10.2014 as well as the letter dated 20.04.2015 issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Lumding, Northeast Frontier Railway for forfeiture of the earnest money and performance guarantee and further seeks for a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Chief Medical Superintendent, Lumding, Northeast Frontier Railway to refund the performance guarantee of Rs.44,664/- and earnest money of Rs.19,330/- along with payment of Rs.1,46,600/- for the works done by the petitioner which were raised before the CMS, Lumding vide bills along with various other expenses as enumerated in the letter dated 12.03.2015. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that on 03.04.2014, a tender was issued for removal and disposal of garbage from the Dimapur Railway area for a period of 2 (two) years from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2016. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner herein was granted the contract on25.07.2014 for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2016. 4. It is relevant to take note of that on 09.07.2014 as well as on 09.09.2014, the petitioner was informed that he has failed in performing the contract work for disposal of the garbage and the performance was not satisfactory. It was mentioned that the failure to carry out the obligation upon the petitioner was in violation to the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner was therefore requested to execute the work with full satisfaction as per the terms and conditions of the contract otherwise necessary steps would be taken as per the contract agreement. 5. Subsequent thereto, on 28/30.10.2014 the petitioner was informed by the Chief Medical Superintendent/LMG that the contract between the petitioner and the respondents would be terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2014 for unsatisfactory performance of the work. 6. The record reveals that on 12.03.2015, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Superintendent/LMG, Northeast Frontier Railway that the contract in question was terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2014 and in view of such termination, the several expenses incurred by the petitioner for carrying out the work be reimbursed. The petitioner sought for reimbursement of the expenses which included the performance guarantee money and earnest money. 7. The petitioner sought for reimbursement of the expenses which included the performance guarantee money and earnest money. 7. The record further reveals that on 20.04.2015, the Chief Medical Superintendent/LMG informed the petitioner that the earnest money and the performance guarantee have been forfeited. 8. The records further reveal that a representation was submitted by the petitioner which is undated. 9. Be that as it may, on 07.03.2022, a legal notice was issued to the respondents herein for refund of the amount as claimed by the petitioner in the representation dated 12.03.2015. This legal notice was replied by the respondents vide a communication dated 17.03.2022 wherein it was mentioned that letters were issued to the petitioner time to time by the respondents for improving the performance and executing the contract in terms with the contract agreement but as the petitioner failed, it resulted in termination of the contract. Further to that, it was mentioned that as the contract was terminated due to unsatisfactory performance, the performance guarantee money, EMD/security deposited was forfeited in terms with Clause 13(a), 13(f) and 13(g)(iii) of the contract agreement. 10. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 28.07.2025. 11. The record reveals that pursuant to the notice being issued by this Court on 14.08.2025, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondents thereby supporting the termination and it was mentioned that the Railway Administration had issued communication on 3 (three) occasions i.e. on 09.07.2014, 09.09.2014 and 28.10.2014 informing the petitioner that the petitioner had failed to perform as per the terms of the contract. It was also mentioned that the Railway Administration had strictly in consonance with Clause 13(a), 13(f) and 13(g)(iii) of the contract agreement forfeited the earnest money as well as the performance guarantee. 12. No reply thereagainst has been filed by the petitioner. 13. This Court heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and had perused the materials on record. 14. The record reveals that the petitioner herein was granted the contract on 25.07.2014 giving effect from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2016. The record further reveals that the petitioner failed to carry out the work to the satisfaction of the Respondent Authorities and resultantly the contract was terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2014. The petitioner claimed certain amounts on account of performance guarantee, earnest money, and certain payments to which the petitioner was entitled vide the communication dated 12.03.2015. The record further reveals that the petitioner failed to carry out the work to the satisfaction of the Respondent Authorities and resultantly the contract was terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2014. The petitioner claimed certain amounts on account of performance guarantee, earnest money, and certain payments to which the petitioner was entitled vide the communication dated 12.03.2015. The records further reveal that a legal notice was thereupon issued on 07.03.2022, which was also promptly replied to by the respondents stating inter alia that the petitioner was not entitled to any amount. The writ petition was thereafter filed on 28.07.2025 claiming the said amounts. 15. At the outset, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition suffers from delay and laches, taking into account that the contract was terminated as far back as on 31.10.2014 and the entitlement, if any, ought to have been claimed and, if not granted, the petitioner ought to have approached the Court immediately. The petitioner did not approach the Court, rather, after a hiatus of more than 10 (ten) years, the petitioner has approached this Court by challenging the termination order. 16. In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu , reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 , wherein the Supreme Court observed that a litigant who behaves like a “Kumbhakarna” or a “Rip Van Winkle” would not be entitled to any discretionary remedy. Paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the said judgment are reproduced herein below:- “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. 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 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.” 17. It is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition challenging the termination order after more than 10 (ten) years is a case of absolute negligence, carelessness as well as inaction on the part of the petitioner. The termination order having not been challenged for the last 10 (ten) years, if permitted to be challenged in exercise of the powers of judicial review would gross effect the rights of the respondents. It would be a case of fostering injustice. Under such circumstances, on this count alone, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. The termination order having not been challenged for the last 10 (ten) years, if permitted to be challenged in exercise of the powers of judicial review would gross effect the rights of the respondents. It would be a case of fostering injustice. Under such circumstances, on this count alone, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that the termination order if not permissible to be challenged at this stage, the forfeiture of performance guarantee as well as earnest money deposit cannot also be challenged. Additionally, the claim for expenses incurred cannot also be permitted after such a delay. 18. In addition to that, this Court also finds it relevant to take note of the fact that the claim so made by the petitioner is based upon the legality or validity of the termination of the contract. The record reveals that the petitioner was given notices for improvement, which the petitioner failed, and it was under such circumstances that the contract was terminated w.e.f.31.10.2014. 19. Further to that, whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount would involve an adjudication of the facts, which being in the realm of disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the same stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to impose costs.