GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 1 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 3:
Heard Ms. B. Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the PHE Department. 2. The Petitioner herein has sought for a direction from this Court thereby directing the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs.5,73,806/- on account of the same being due to the Petitioner for the works completed by the Petitioner. 3. It is relevant to take note of that the Petitioner herein claims the said amount on the basis of various work orders issued to the Petitioner on 05.01.2016, 20.01.2016 and 29.01.2016. It is stated that the works were duly completed by the Petitioner and in that regard have enclosed a Work Completion Certificate of one such work. However the said Completion Certificate is not dated. 4. The materials on record also do not show what steps were taken by the Petitioner for the purpose of realization of the said amount alleged to be due to the Petitioner. It was only in the year 2023 that too in the month of November, a joint representation was submitted by various contractors to the PHE Department including the Petitioner and as the Respondent Authorities have not given any favourable response, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the PHE Department submits that taking into account that the Petitioner has approached this Court after 8 years and there is no materials showing that there is any completion in respect to the various work orders enclosed, it is difficult on the part of the Respondents to carry out the verifications at this late juncture. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that in respect of certain alleged dues, filing of a writ petition after almost a decade takes away a valuable right of the Respondents to have a defence inasmuch as the relevant records would not be available for making necessary verification. He, therefore, submitted that this is a case wherein this Court ought not to entertain the writ petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. 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 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.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqGbO8QkBeS3tBHxPwI82Av8vEDdWrvN5kcf9OdcIczM%2F&caseno=WP(C)/2504/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010056052024&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
