GAHC010255102025 2025:GAU-AS:17249

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/7071/2025

ILABANTA SINGHA

SON OF LATE KULAJIT SINGHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHAMALIA, .O.-

UTTARKRISHNAPUR, P.S.- SILCHAR, IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR,

ASSAM, PIN 788006.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM and othrs

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIATE, DISPUR,

ASSAM, PIN 781006.

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

ASSAM

CHANDMARI

GUWAHATI

ASSAM

PIN 781003

3:THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

ASSAM

CHANDMARI

GUWAHATI

ASSAM

PIN 781003.

4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT

SILCHAR DIVISION

SILCHAR

78800 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. MR Sodial Advocate for the respondent(s):

B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

12.12.2025 Heard Mr. MR Sodial, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. DS Neog, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to make payment of an amount of Rs.1,73,250/-, which the petitioner claims to be entitled on account of supply of Waterproofing Materials (200 Drums) in the year 2010.

3. The material facts which led to the filing of the writ petition is that a work order was issued on 17.02.2010 to the petitioner for supply of Waterproofing Materials (200 Drums). It is the case of the petitioner that the said materials were duly supplied and the petitioner submitted a bill. The bill has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. However, it is noticed that there is neither any date in the bill nor any there is any receipt of the said bill. There is also no material placed before this Court that the petitioner had duly supplied the materials in question.

4. Be that as it may, in the year 2025 i.e. after a gap of 15 years, the petitioner submitted an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. But the said application was not accepted. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted another representation on 18.10.2005 before the Executive Engineer, (Irrigation), Silchar Division, Cachar for early payment. Having not received any favourable response, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Ms. DS Noeg, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that a perusal of the work order does not show what is the date. The bill which has been submitted also does not bear any date. There is no material on record to show that any supply was made and there was any receipt. Under such circumstances, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. In addition to that, the learned counsel also submitted that in the case of the present kind, if there is a direction for making verification and then to pay, it causes great prejudice to the respondents taking into account the respondents loses a valuable defense for non-availability of materials to carry out verification. 7. 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 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 cour