Dismissed¶35

Rajib Baruah v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Nov 2025WP(C)/5606/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; writ for payment of outstanding dues; stale claim; Article 226 jurisdiction; work orders 2012-2013; PHE Department Assam; Finance Department; 'Kumbhakarna'; Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply v. T.T Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108; liberty to approach Civil Court; exclusion of limitation period; Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/5606/2025; Devashis Baruah, J.; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court, with the pendency period of the writ petition (w.e.f. 19.08.2025 till date) excluded while computing limitation, and without prejudice to the petitioner in such proceedings. ¶35

Rajib Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 8,83,298/- with interest at 12% per annum, filed about a decade after the work orders of 2012-2013 and without any explanation for the delay or any acknowledgment of the dues by the respondents, should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶23

Court's answer

The Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

A direction for verification and payment after a passage of a decade from the work orders would seriously affect the rights of the respondent authorities; there was no material showing that the respondents had admitted the dues from time to time since completion of the works.

¶28

Key takeaways

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the competent Civil Court, if so permissible under the law.ratio¶36
The period during which the writ petition was pending (w.e.f. 19.08.2025 till date) is to be excluded while computing the period of limitation in any civil proceedings.ratio¶36
The instant order shall not prejudice the petitioner in such civil proceedings.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.) [WP(C)/5606/2025, decided 07.11.2025]: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the State of Assam (PHE Department) to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 8,83,298/- with interest at 12% per annum for works executed pursuant to work orders of 2012-2013, for which work completion certificates were allegedly issued. The Court found no explanation for the petitioner approaching it after a decade and no material showing acknowledgment of the dues by the respondents. Relying on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board And Others v. T.T Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 (a litigant cannot be permitted to behave like 'Kumbhakarna'; delay and laches), the Court held that a direction for verification and payment after a decade would seriously affect the rights of the respondent authorities, and declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to approach the competent Civil Court; the pendency period of the writ petition (w.e.f. 19.08.2025 till date) was directed to be excluded while computing limitation, without prejudice to the petitioner in such proceedings.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010187852025

2025:GAU-AS:15048

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5606/2025

¶6

RAJIB BARUAH

¶7

S/O LATE SABHARAM BARUAH, R/O VILL- DUWARICHIGA GAON, P.O. AND P.S.- NITAIPUKHARI, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PHE), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE) HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶11

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE) SIVASAGAR DIVISION SIVASAGAR

¶12

4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI-

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Bora, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gogoi, Standing Counsel Mr. A. Chaliha, Standing Counsel

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 07.11.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the PHE Department and Mr. A. Chaliha, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Finance Department.

¶20

The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions upon the respondents to the effect that the remaining outstanding amount of Rs. 8,83,298/- be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

¶21

This Court has duly taken note of the materials on record wherein it is seen that the petitioner claims to have been issued various work orders sometime in the year 2012 and 2013. It is also the statement of the petitioner that the said works were completed and work completion certificates were also issued

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

which have been enclosed as Annexure-II (series) to the writ petition. However, the said amount having not been paid, the petitioner has approached this Court. There is not a single explanation, why the petitioner has approached this Court after a decade seeking the said dues. There is also nothing on record to show that the respondents have at all acknowledged that the petitioner was entitled to such payment.

¶24

In this regard, this Court has also taken note of the submission of Mr. R.R. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the PHE Department who submitted that when a petitioner approaches this Court seeking a writ for making payment upon due verification after a long period, it becomes difficult on the part of the respondents to carry out any verifications thereby losing valuable right of defence.

¶25

Mr. A Chaliha, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department submitted that the PHE Department having issued the work orders are required to verify and when any amount comes for sanction, then only the Finance Department would raise objection, calling for the necessary documents.

¶26

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

¶27

Page No.# 4/6

¶28

passage of a decade, from the date when the work orders were issued, 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.

¶29

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 herein below:

¶30

“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. 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

¶31

Page No.# 5/6

¶32

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.

¶33

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.”

¶34

Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

¶36

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. 19.08.2025 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. The instant order so passed

¶37

Page No.# 6/6

¶38

shall not prejudice the petitioner in such proceedings.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Rajib Baruah v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajib Baruah v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ziabur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Maa Laxmi Tailors and 15 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

M/S Suhana Enterprise and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sarbananda Bora Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Subir Paul Vs Biswajit Pegu, IAS and Anr.

Smti Paromita Sen Vs Biswajit Pegu, IAS and Anr.