VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Gauhati High Court 2023 › High Court of Gauhati

Madhujya Mohan v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

Disposed Of
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
24 January 2023
Bench
(Acting) Mr. N. Kotiswar Singh, Soumitra Saikia
Case no.
WA 219/2022

Judgment

ORDER

(ORAL)

24.01.2023 [N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ(Acting)] Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. R.R. Kakati, for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, PWD, appearing for the respondents.

¶2The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3649/2021 by which plea of the petitioner for directing the State respondents for payment of certain alleged billed amount of ` 98,52,157/- for execution of works, namely, S/R to Tingrai Chariali to Dehing Bandh Road in Tengakhat Road Sub-Division under Dibrugarh Road Division for 2001-02 (Ch. 0.00 KM to 1.50 KM E/W & GWC", "S/R to Tipong Facial Road in Tengakhat Road Sub-Division under Dibrugarh Road Division for 2001-02 (Providing E/W, GWC, wearing for 1st to 2nd KM)", "S/R to Chiang Ali Road in Tengakhat Road Sub-Division under Dibrugarh Road Division for 2001-02 (Providing gravelling, heavy dressing and side berm from Ch 4th to 6th KM)" and "S/R to Ushapur Tangari Road in Tengakhat Road Sub-Division under Dibrugarh Road Division for 2001-02 (Ch 1st to 3rd KM, Providing E/W, GWC wearing court, etc." was declined by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner approached the Court very belatedly. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows: "Heard Shri N. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, who by means of this writ Page No.# 3/4 petition has prayed for a direction for release of the contractual bills amounting to Rs.98,52,157/-. It is the case of the petitioner that a work namely, "S/R to Tingrai Chariali to Dehing Bandh Road in Tengakhat Road Sub-Division under Dibrugarh Road Division for 2001-02 (Ch.0.00KM to 1.50 KM E/W & GWC", "S/R to Tipong Facial Raod in Tengakhat Road Sub-Division under Dibrugarh Road Division for 2001-02 (Providing E/, GWC, wearing for 1st to 2nd KM)"; "S/R to Chiang Ali Road in Tengakhat Road Sub-Division under Dinrugarh Road Division for 2001-02 (Providing gravelling, heavy dressing and side berm from Ch 4th to 6th KM)"' and "S/R to Ushapur Tangari Road in Tengakhat Road Sub-Division under Dibrugarh Road Division for 2001-02 (Ch 1st to 3rd KM, Providing E/W, GWC wearing court, etc)" was duly allotted to him which he had completed in all the aspects. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the formal work order dated

28.02.2002 which was completed in the same year itself as would be evident from the completion certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. Though the petitioner who has claimed a huge amount, it is failed to be understood as to how a claim of 2002 would be entertainable by filing of a writ petition in the year 2021. Though the law of limitation per se may not have any application in a writ proceedings, it is not the question of delay but laches which stares on the face of the petitioner. This Court is also astonished to notice the stand of the Department, which has filed an affidavit through the respondent No. 4, Executive Engineer which has failed to take the basic objection and has gone into simply giving the ground for not being able to pay. A Writ Court being a court of equity, the party approaching this Court has to come bona fide and with clean hands. The ordinate delay of more than two decades has prima facie established the gross negligence and laches on the part of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed."

¶3We do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding and observation of the learned Single Judge as the writ petitioner/appellant has very belatedly approached this Court. However, we are of the view that even if we have declined to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue any writ of mandamus or any direction to respondent authorities to make payment of the aforesaid amount claimed by Page No.# 4/4 the petitioner, nothing prevents the State Government to entertain the request of the petitioner for making payment of the amount due if the petitioner approaches the Government for release of the same.

¶4Under the circumstances, as submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, the appellant may approach the Government and the Government may consider the same as per their wisdom and discretion of the State.

¶5Accordingly, as also submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, the writ petitioner/appellant may approach the Government and the Government may consider release of the same considering also the fact that there is no denial by the State Government about its liability on account of the work executed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

¶6We make it clear that we have not interfered with the order passed by the learned Single Judge on merit on the ground the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition, but we have only observed that the appellant/writ petitioner would be at liberty to approach the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities will consider the same as per their wisdom as observed above.

¶7With the above observations, the present appeal stands closed. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Soumitra Saikia JUDGE Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Case details

Parties and counsel

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010122662022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/219/2022o MADHUJYAoMOHANo S/OoSRIoDINDESWARoMOHAN,oR/OoBORBARUAH,oNEARoPRAKASHoSTORE,o P.O.oBARBARUAH,oP.S.oBARBARUAH,oDIST.oDIBRUGARH,oASSAM,oPINo 786007 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORS.o REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFo ASSAM,oPUBLICoWORKSoDEPTT.,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATIo6 2:THEoCHIEFoENGINEER oPUBLICoWORKSoDEPTT.o(ROADS) oASSAM oCHANDMARI oGUWAHATI. 3:THEoSUPERINTENDENToENGINEER oPUBLICoWORKSoDEPTT. o(RoANDoB) oDIBRUGARHoROADoCIRCLE oDIBRUGARH. 4:THEoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oPUBLICoWORKSoDEPTT. oDIBRUGARHoRURALoROADSoDIVISION oDIBRUGARHo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oKoNoCHOUDHURYo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oSC,oPWDoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.