Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 483 (GAU)

Radha Madhav Sinha v. State of Assam & Ors.

2015-04-23

T.VAIPHEI

body2015
Having heard Ms. P. Chkraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam at some length, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold on the ground of laches. 2. The petitioner is claiming payment of the increment following revision of pay for the year 1992, DA @ 17% for the year 1992 and another DA @ 60% for the year 1996 and salary arrears from June, 2000 to July, 2001. It may be noted at this stage that the petitioner had already approached this Court in WP(C) No. 536 of 2006, and this Court by the order dated 30-4-2012 disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass necessary speaking order within one month from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. No action was apparently taken by the respondent authorities whereupon this second round of litigation is initiated by the petitioner for the same relief. The reliefs sought for in this writ petition are for recovery of money allegedly payable by the respondent authorities to the petitioner. Basically, such relief can be claimed by instituting a money suit. However, the period of limitation for instituting a money suit is three years. In the instant case, the claims so made by the petitioner are for the years, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 2000-2001, and are, therefore, hopelessly time-barred if a money suit were to be instituted by the petitioner. True, writ petition is not a money suit, but then, the exercise of writ jurisdiction is also governed and regulated by the principles of laches. The question is whether the petitioner can be allowed to file this writ petition after some 14 to 23 years after the causes of action for each of the claims arose? The answer is definitely “No”. Two factors come in the way of the petitioner in approaching this Court. Firstly, the petitioner did not file any contempt petition against the official-respondents for not complying with the order dated 30-4-2012 within one year. No satisfactory explanation is offered by the petitioner for not filing the contempt petition in time. The answer is definitely “No”. Two factors come in the way of the petitioner in approaching this Court. Firstly, the petitioner did not file any contempt petition against the official-respondents for not complying with the order dated 30-4-2012 within one year. No satisfactory explanation is offered by the petitioner for not filing the contempt petition in time. Moreover, by not complaining of such contumacious conduct on the part of the official-respondents, the petitioner is deemed to have waived his right to pursue his case or has acquiesced in to their inactions. Secondly, the first writ petition cannot have the effect of extending the period of limitation or of removing the bar of laches. The Court helps the vigilant and not the indolent. The petitioner should have been diligent in pursuing his remedy and file a case within a reasonable time from the date his right was infringed, and undue delay on his part has debarred him from getting the relief claimed by him. The doctrine of laches applies even to a writ petition complaining of violation of fundamental rights. 3. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-payment of money due to the petitioner is a continuing wrong, and no period of limitation will run against him. In support of her contention, she draws my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and others, AIR 1989 SC 2285 and Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8 . In my opinion, the doctrine of laches is evolved to deal with a case filed by an indolent and negligent litigant, who, like Rip Van Winkle, suddenly woke up from his slumber and knocked at the door of a Court after allowing considerable period of time to lapse oblivious of the tremendous inconvenience and burden being caused to the opposite party. An attempt should be made by an aggrieved person to enforce his right within a reasonable period of time in the case of a writ petition or within the period of limitation prescribed by law of limitation in the case of a suit. The doctrine of laches cannot be defeated by invoking the concept of continuing wrong. 4. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed at the motion stage. The doctrine of laches cannot be defeated by invoking the concept of continuing wrong. 4. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed at the motion stage. However, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.