Sarbananda Bora Vs Union of India and 6 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

Sarbananda Bora Vs Union of India and 6 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No monetary relief. Petitioner given liberty to approach the competent Civil Court, if permissible under law, with the period of pendency of the writ petition (w.e.f. 17.10.2025 till date) to be excluded while computing limitation; the order shall not prejudice the petitioner in such proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct the respondents to release the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,16,504/- claimed by the petitioner in respect of work orders issued in 2012. +1 more

Court's answer

There were no materials submitted on record that, since completion of the works, the respondents had admitted from time to time the dues payable to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner approached this Court after a passage of a decade from the date the work orders were issued, any direction passed in the writ petition for verification and then to pay would seriously affect the rights of the respondent authorities.

Key takeaways

Considering the delay-and-laches principles of the Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 (a litigant cannot behave like “Kumbhakarna”), this Court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh), WP(C)/6213/2025 — Sarbananda Bora v. Union of India and 6 Ors (Ministry of Jal Shakti E-Governance Cell; Brahmaputra Board; State of Assam and Water Resources Department officers), decided 07.11.2025 by Devashis Baruah, J. The petitioner sought a writ direction to release an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,16,504/- in respect of work orders issued in 2012, with bills submitted in 2013, 2014 and 2016 and part payment allegedly made; the writ was filed on 17.10.2025 after information was obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 22.05.2023. Held: the petitioner having approached after a passage of a decade from issuance of the work orders, any direction for verification and then payment would seriously affect the rights of the respondent authorities, and no material on record showed periodical admission of dues. Relying on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 (delay and laches; a litigant cannot behave like “Kumbhakarna”), the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition, while granting the petitioner liberty to approach the competent Civil Court, excluding the pendency period (w.e.f. 17.10.2025) from limitation.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010235682025

2025:GAU-AS:15052

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

Case No. : WP(C)/6213/2025

SARBANANDA BORA

S/O- PUHI RAM BORA, R/O- VILL.- NEAR KAMPUR H S SCHOOL, KAMPUR KALYANPUR, P.O. AND P.S. KAMPUR, PIN- 782426, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS

MINISTRY OF JAL SHAKTI E-GOVERNANCE CELL, 6TH FLOOR CABIN, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

2:BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD BASISTHA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781029.

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ASSAM BASISTHA GUWAHATI-29.

5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES CIRCLE NAGAON-782120.

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Page No.# 2/5

MORIGAON WATER RESOURCES DIVISION MORIGAON PIN- 782105.

7:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JAGIROAD WATER RESOURCE SUB-DIVISION PIN- 782410

For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. K.K. Choudhury, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Tinglung, Standing Counsel

Ms. P. Rabha, Advocate

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 07.11.2025

Heard Mrs. K.K. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. P. Rabha, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Tinglung, the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7.

The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to release the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,16,504/-.

This Court duly takes note of that the claims so made by the petitioner is in respect to certain work orders issued in the year 2012 and that the bills were duly submitted in the years 2013,

Page No.# 3/5

2014 and 2016. It is the further claim of the petitioner that certain amount has been paid, however, an amount of Rs. 1,16,504/- remains outstanding. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed on 17.10.2025 after the petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 22.05.2023.

In this regard, this Court has also taken note of the submission of Ms. Tinglung, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Water Resources 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.

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 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

Page No.# 4/5

to the petitioner.

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:

“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 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.

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

Page No.# 5/5

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.”

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

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

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. 17.10.2025 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. The instant order so passed shall not prejudice the petitioner in such proceedings.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant