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.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. The petitioner in the writ petition was awarded a contract by the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Hazaribag under the National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) for construction of Mini Rural Pipe Water Supply System in village Barikola Jhonjhi vide a contract dt. 06.03.2013 and in another village-Dato Kala also on the same date (Annexures-1 & 2).

2. Pursuant thereto, work orders were issued and the petitioner completed the works and handed over the Mini Rural Pipe Water Supply System to the authorities in both the villages and has filed Annexure-3 letter dt. 15.04.2017 in support of the same.

3. Petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-5 letter dt. 24.11.2018, in which the Respondent 4 had requested for release of funds from Respondent 2 for payments for the works completed under Mini Rural Water Supply Scheme 4197, CRF and others, which also mentions the two contracts given to petitioner, and contends that there is an admission of liability on part of respondents to make him payments indicated therein for the works executed by him.

4. Petitioner contends that he had made a claim before the respondents and demanded the admitted dues through two representations dt. 17.08.2020 (to Respondent 2 and to Respondent 4), two representations dt. 22.02.2021 (to Respondent 2 and to Respondent 4), one representation dt. 14.03.2022 (to Respondent 4) and two representations dt. 13.06.2023 (to Respondent 2 and to Respondent 4)(Annexure-4 series).

5. Petitioner contends that the inaction of the respondents in making payment the admitted dues despite completion of work is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14, Art.19(1) (g) and Art.300 A of the Constitution of India and seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the same without further delay with interest.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is not denied that the respondents had received the Annexure-4 series of representations made by the petitioner. It is also not stated in the counter affidavit that at any point of time a reply was given to the petitioner denying the liability to make the said payment. Thus, the respondents had maintained absolute silence all through.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is alleged stand is taken that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches as the matter is of the year 2012 and 2013.In Ram Chand v. Union of India , (1994) 1 SCC 44 it was held that while considering the question of delay and laches in filing a Writ Petition, the Court also has to consider the inaction on the part of the authorities who had to perform their duty. The authority cannot contend that its failure to perform its duty within a reasonable time would be inconsequential.This aptly applies to the instant case.

8. Also the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong in not giving any response to the petitioner in spite of his representations for payment of the amount claimed under the contracts awarded to him and seek to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches.In Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others , (2007) 11 SCC 447 , the Supreme Court had held that no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong quoting its previous citation in Union of India Vs. Major Gen Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.), (1996) 4 SCC 127 . This was also reiterated in M.K. Shah Engineers and Contractors vs. State