JUDGMENT

Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - The instant case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to forthwith pay the admitted dues along with earnest money and security deposit with respect to the contract work discharged by the petitioner as also to grant approval of the works already done by the petitioner apart from approving price variation.

3. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner, who is a contractor, was awarded contract work for construction of HL bridge (RCC) at Sariya and an agreement was entered into with the Executing Engineer, NH Division, Chapra on 13.03.2013 for construction of the aforesaid bridge wherein the time period stipulated for completion of the contract work was 16 months from the date of agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that the bridge in question was constructed within the stipulated time period, however, subsequently, the Executive Engineer, directed the petitioner to undertake additional work whereupon the petitioner had performed variation work, but the same was not approved. It is stated that the entire work was completed in the year 2014 itself, however, the admitted outstanding dues are yet to be paid to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State, Shri. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, SC-26 has referred to the counter-affidavit filed in the present case and has submitted that the present petition is barred by delay and latches inasmuch as the present petition has been filed after a huge delay of six years. It is further submitted that the then Executive Engineer, NH Division, Chapra had made variation in the work of BM and SDBC and prime coat without the approval of the concerned Chief Engineer, who is the competent authority for grant of approval. It is further submitted that the Assistant Engineer, N.H. Sub-Division, Muzaffarpur-III had examined the records and vide letter dated 07.08.2018, he has communicated to the Executive Engineer, NH Division, Chapra that as per the measurement book No. 338, payment has been made to the petitioner against his eight bills totalling to a sum of Rs. 3,68,53,379.00, for the work done by the petitioner. In fact a sum of Rs. 41.07 lacs and Rs. 16.16 lacs has also been paid to the petitioner as secured advance against the 4th and 7th A/C Bills. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that various other amounts were also paid to the petitioner on the head of secured advances, against which adjustments were made, however, in nutshell the position is that still a sum of Rs. 14,77,489/- is recoverable from the petitioner against the secured advance money which had been taken by the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, in reply, submitted that the petitioner has refuted the aforesaid statements made in the counter affidavit by filing a rejoinder affidavit.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. This Court finds that though the work was completed in the year 2014, but the petitioner has approached this Court after a huge delay of about six years for which no plausible explanation what-so-ever has been furnished by the petitioner. It is a well settled law that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner, the Court may decline to intervene and grant relief inasmuch as entertaining such a belated claim would only have the effect of inflicting hardship and inconvenience. It is equally a well settled law that stale claim is not to be adjudicated and deserve to be thrown out at the very threshold. In this regard it would be apt to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in