Ranjit Kumar Paul v. The State of Assam and 8 Ors

ORDER

04.12.2023

Heard Shri J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R.M. Deka, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department as well as Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

The petitioner claims to have executed three contractual work namely, (i) M&R to protect the area from Phanirbond to Dullavpur from flooding of River Shingla for 2012-13 (Closing work at Panchdali) (ii) M&R to protect the area from Phanirbond to Dullavpur from flooding of River Shingla for 2012-13 (Closing work at Madanpur) and (iii) M&R to Dyke along BB of River Singla from Dullavpur to Kakrakhal for 2012-13, K-6. Page No.# 3/4

It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the works being completed, the total bills have not been paid to the petitioner. As per the petitioner, he is entitled to certain amounts pertaining to the said works and in this connection, he had also issued notice under Section 80 (1) of the CPC.

The learned counsel for the respondents however submits that the works are of the year 2012-13 and therefore, the contentions raised cannot be matters of adjudication after a delay of around 10 years. Responding to the said objection, Shri Sulaiman, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the legal notice served under Section 80 (1) of the CPC was received and a communication was also issued on 03.09.2021 to reply to the same and therefore there is no delay as such.

The aspect of the application of Limitation Act in a writ proceeding has been adequately explained by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR (1964) SC 1006. In paragraph 21 of the said judgment, it has been observed as follows.

"The learned Judges appear to have failed to notice that the delay in these petitions was more than the delay in the petition made in Bhailal Bhai's case out of which Civil Appeal No. 362 of 1962 has arisen. On behalf of the respondents-petitioners in these appeals (C.A. Nos. 861 to 867 of 1962) Mr. Andley has argued that the delay in these cases even is not such as would justify refusal of the order for refund. He argued that assuming that the remedy of recovery by action in a civil court stood barred on the date these applications were made that would be no reason to refuse relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art. 226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought 134--159 S.C. 18 may Page No.# 4/4 ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226 can be measured. The Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy. but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable. The period of limitation prescribed for recovery of money paid by mistake under the Limitation Act is three years from the date when the mistake is known. If the mistake was known in these cases on or shortly after January 17, 1956 the delay in making these applications should be considered unreasonable. If, on the other hand, as Mr. Andley seems to argue, the mistake was discovered much later, this would be a controversial fact which cannot conveniently be decided in writ proceedings. In either view of the matter we are of opinion the orders for refund made by the High Court in these seven cases cannot be sustained."

What has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that while the Limitation Act per se may not be applicable, its spirit will be applicable and where matters are barred by limitation, the question of laches would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration by a writ Court.

In the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that issuing a notice under Section 80 of the CPC cannot extend the limitation and the laches on part of the petitioner cannot be overlooked / obliterated.

Therefore, without even going into the merits of the claim, this Court is of the opinion that on the ground of laches, this writ petition is not liable to be entertained.

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010271132023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6986/2023o RANJIToKUMARoPAULo S/O-oLATEoSANAToKUMARoPAUL,oR/O-oSUBHASHoNAGAR,oP.O.o KARIMGANJ,oP.S.oKARIMGANJ,oDIST.-oKARIMGANJ,oASSAM,oINDIA,oPINo NO.o788210 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo8oORSo TOoBEoREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCHIEFoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFo ASSAM,oWATERoRESOURCEoDEPARTMENT,oDISPUR-06,oASSAM 2:THEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM oWATERoRESOURCESoDEPARTMENToDISPUR oGUWAHATI-o781006 3:THEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVToOFoASSAM oFINANCEoDEPARTMENT oDISPUR oGUWAHATI-6 4:THEoCHIEFoENGINEER oWATERoRESOURCEoDEPARTMENT oASSAM oNATIONALoHIGHWAY-37 oBASISTHA oGUWAHATI-o781029 5:THEoADDL.oCHIEFoENGINEER oCACHARoANDoHILLSoWATERoRESOURCESoSILCHAR oDIST.-oCACHAR oASSAM 6:THEoSUPERINTENDINGoENGINEER oHAILAKANDIoWATERoRESOURCEoCIRCLE Page No.# 2/4 HAILAKANDI ASSAM 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARIMGANJ WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT KARIMGANJ ASSAM 8:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DIVISION KARIMGANJ ASSAM 9:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF KARIMGANJ DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI