Petitioner sought payment for completed contractual works alleged to be time-barred. Court held that limitation Act's spirit and doctrine of laches apply, barring the petition despite Section 80 CPC notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010271132023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6986/2023
RANJIT KUMAR PAUL
S/O- LATE SANAT KUMAR PAUL, R/O- SUBHASH NAGAR, P.O. KARIMGANJ, P.S. KARIMGANJ, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, INDIA, PIN NO. 788210
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR-06, ASSAM
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM NATIONAL HIGHWAY-37 BASISTHA GUWAHATI- 781029
5:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER CACHAR AND HILLS WATER RESOURCES SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM
6:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER HAILAKANDI WATER RESOURCE CIRCLE
Page No.# 2/4
HAILAKANDI ASSAM
7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARIMGANJ WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT KARIMGANJ ASSAM 8:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DIVISION KARIMGANJ ASSAM 9:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF KARIMGANJ DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
04.12.2023
Heard Shri J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R.M. Deka, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department as well as Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.
The petitioner claims to have executed three contractual work namely, (i) M&R to protect the area from Phanirbond to Dullavpur from flooding of River Shingla for 2012-13 (Closing work at Panchdali) (ii) M&R to protect the area from Phanirbond to Dullavpur from flooding of River Shingla for 2012-13 (Closing work at Madanpur) and (iii) M&R to Dyke along BB of River Singla from Dullavpur to Kakrakhal for 2012-13, K-6.
Page No.# 3/4
It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the works being completed, the total bills have not been paid to the petitioner. As per the petitioner, he is entitled to certain amounts pertaining to the said works and in this connection, he had also issued notice under Section 80 (1) of the CPC.
The learned counsel for the respondents however submits that the works are of the year 2012-13 and therefore, the contentions raised cannot be matters of adjudication after a delay of around 10 years.
Responding to the said objection, Shri Sulaiman, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the legal notice served under Section 80 (1) of the CPC was received and a communication was also issued on 03.09.2021 to reply to the same and therefore there is no delay as such.
The aspect of the application of Limitation Act in a writ proceeding has been adequately explained by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR (1964) SC 1006 . In paragraph 21 of the said judgment, it has been observed as follows.
Page No.# 4/4
ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226can be measured. The Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy. but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable. The period of limitation prescribed for recovery of money paid by mistake under the Limitation Actis three years from the date when the mistake is known. If the mistake was known in these cases on or shortly after January 17, 1956 the delay in making these applications should be considered unreasonable. If, on the other hand, as Mr. Andley seems to argue, the mistake was discovered much later, this would be a controversial fact which cannot conveniently be decided in writ proceedings. In either view of the matter we are of opinion the orders for refund made by the High Court in these seven cases cannot be sustained.”
What has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that while the Limitation Act per se may not be applicable, its spirit will be applicable and where matters are barred by limitation, the question of laches would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration by a writ Court.
In the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that issuing a notice under Section 80 of the CPC cannot extend the limitation and the laches on part of the petitioner cannot be overlooked / obliterated.
Therefore, without even going into the merits of the claim, this Court is of the opinion that on the ground of laches, this writ petition is not liable to be entertained.
Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be entertained despite delay when the Limitation Act does not technically apply to writ proceedings.
Whether laches bars the grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether issuance of a notice under Section 80 CPC extends the limitation period for writ petitions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of MP Vs. Bhailal BhaiExplained¶29
State of MP Vs. Bhailal Bhai, AIR (1964) SC 1006 · Who else cites this
RANJIT KUMAR PAUL
THE STATE OF ASSAM
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
