The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a medical attendant's appointment made six years prior, citing the petitioner's inordinate delay and laches which barred the court's extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The writ petition stands dismissed without imposition of costs.
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.# 1/7
GAHC020003182025
2026:GAU-NL:468
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : WP(C)/100/2025
SHRI AKITO SUMI
S/O SHRI AHOVI SUMI, R/O H/NO. 40, BLOCK 2, 5TH MILE UNITY VILLAGE, SUGARMILL AREA, DIST-CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND AND A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SAPOTIMI VILLAGE, ZUNHEBOTO DIST- NAGALAND
VERSUS
STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NAGALAND KOHIMA
2:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA
3:THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND
4:SHRI HUKUTO Y. SUMI MEDICAL ATTENDANT SAPOTIMI SUB CENTRE ZUNHEBOTO DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAN
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Longkumer, Govt. Advocate
: Mr. Z. Kulnu, Advocate
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. M. Longkumer, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Z. Kulnu, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 4.
Page No.# 3/7
petition was filed on 12.06.2025, i.e., after six years from the date of appointment of the Respondent No. 4.
Page No.# 4/7
to be appointed, however, the Respondent No. 4 was appointed vide communication dated 10.06.2019. It is on the basis thereof that after six years, the Petitioner filed the writ petition.
Page No.# 5/7
issued, taking into account that the Petitioner was a candidate whose application was duly considered. It is the case of the Respondent No. 4 that the Petitioner after six years, having found his non-consideration unpalatable, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Page No.# 6/7
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 clearly observed that a litigant cannot be permitted to behave like “Kumbhakarna”. Paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
“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.
Page No.# 7/7
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.”
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a government appointment filed after six years due to delay and laches should be entertained.
Whether the doctrine of laches and inordinate delay bars the court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in this case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board & Others Vs. T.T Murali BabuReferred¶16
(2014) 4 SCC 108 · Who else cites this
Shri Akito Sumi
State of Nagaland
The Principal Director, Dept. of Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima
The Chief Medical Officer, Zunheboto, Nagaland
Shri Hukuto Y. Sumi
Devashis Baruah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
