Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Vihoshe Kini, S/O Late Hezukhu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland Represented By The Chief Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Mosemsa Longkumer, learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay certain amount which as per the petitioner is an undisputed amount alongwith interest @18% per annum.
3. This Court duly takes note of that in the year 2010 the petitioner was granted a contract for maintenance of the Dimapur to Ganeshnagar road of a value of Rs. 37,17,200/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred). It is mentioned that the said work was completed on 09.11.2010. It is further seen that vide another contract dated 05.09.2011, another Work order was issued for improvement of town road at Dmr. Opposite Road to Bank Colony, Dimapur. It is also mentioned that the said contract was completed on 27.09.2011.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the contractual dues payable to the petitioner have not been paid. The petitioner submitted a Representation on 15.02.2012. Thereupon another Representation was issued on 20.09.2016 and finally
Excessive delay in approaching the court undermines writ jurisdiction, necessitating dismissal of claims lacking timely justification.
The principle of delay and laches precludes a litigant from being entertained for judicial relief when there is excessive delay without adequate justification, impacting the rights of other parties.
The court will not entertain petitions filed after excessive delay, as it undermines the rights of other parties and contradicts the principles of equitable jurisdiction.
Government must fulfill contractual obligations and cannot use delay as a defense when their own inaction causes the delay; courts uphold citizens' claims against unfair government practices.
Mandamus cannot compel payment unless entitlement is established; the court directed verification of claims amid disputes over contract execution.
Inordinate delay in seeking relief can bar a petition under Article 226, emphasizing the principle of laches and the need for timely action by litigants.
Inordinate delay in challenging contract termination warrants dismissal of the writ petition under Article 226; the court is not required to entertain negligent claims, emphasizing strict adherence t....
The doctrine of delay and laches bars stale claims in writ petitions, emphasizing timely action for relief.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
