GAHC010256952025 2025:GAU-AS:16475

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/6715/2025

M/S GREEN VALLEY INDUSTRY

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS SMTI. GOPAL PAL AND SMTI. MITHU DE, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAIN ROAD,

TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM- 784001.

VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT

OF IRRIGATION, DISPUR, ASSAM

2:CHIEF ENGINEER

DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION

CHANDMARI

GUWAHATI

ASSAM-781003.

3:SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TEZPUR CIRCLE (IRRIGATION)

TEZPUR ASSAM

4:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

NADUAR DIVISION (IRRIGATION) SOOTIA

ASSA

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Ganguly, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Upadhaya, Standing Counsel

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 28.11.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N. Upadhaya, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent Irrigation Department to release an outstanding amount of Rs. 9,60,170/-.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that several work orders were issued for supply of RCC Hume Pipes with Collars for CAD works at BIS for the year 2017–2018. The said work orders were issued on 04.01.2018; 06.01.2018; and 08.01.2018, and the materials on record reveal that the said works were completed on 27.01.2018. It is the further case of the petitioner that out of the total amount of Rs. 17,70,875/-, an amount of Rs. 8,10,705/- was released to the petitioner sometime in the year 2019, leaving a balance amount of Rs. 9,60,170/- still unpaid.

3. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and do not find any good justification, as to why, the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of 6 (six) years from the date on which the petitioner claims to be entitled to the amount. 4. Mr. N. Upadhaya, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department submitted that it is very difficult to file the affidavit in the matter of the present kind, taking into account that the works in question were awarded in the year 2018 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2025.

5. The learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department submitted that this is a case where a valuable defense of the Respondent Authorities have been sought to be nullified on account of the delay in approaching this Court.

6. This Court having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents is of the opinion that the petitioner had approached this Court after period of 6 (six) years, from the date when the petitioner claims to have received the part payment. There is no valid justification provided. It is the further opinion of this Court that if directions are passed in the instant writ petition for verification and then to pay, it would seriously affect the rights of the Respondent Authorities inasmuch as the Respondent Authorities may not have records to verify.

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