JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Ms. B. Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the PHE Department. 2. The Petitioner herein has sought for a direction from this Court thereby directing the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs.5,73,806/- on account of the same being due to the Petitioner for the works completed by the Petitioner. 3. It is relevant to take note of that the Petitioner herein claims the said amount on the basis of various work orders issued to the Petitioner on 05.01.2016, 20.01.2016 and 29.01.2016. It is stated that the works were duly completed by the Petitioner and in that regard have enclosed a Work Completion Certificate of one such work. However the said Completion Certificate is not dated. 4. The materials on record also do not show what steps were taken by the Petitioner for the purpose of realization of the said amount alleged to be due to the Petitioner. It was only in the year 2023 that too in the month of November, a joint representation was submitted by various contractors to the PHE Department including the Petitioner and as the Respondent Authorities have not given any favourable response, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the PHE Department submits that taking into account that the Petitioner has approached this Court after 8 years and there is no materials showing that there is any completion in respect to the various work orders enclosed, it is difficult on the part of the Respondents to carry out the verifications at this late juncture. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that in respect of certain alleged dues, filing of a writ petition after almost a decade takes away a valuable right of the Respondents to have a defence inasmuch as the relevant records would not be available for making necessary verification. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that in respect of certain alleged dues, filing of a writ petition after almost a decade takes away a valuable right of the Respondents to have a defence inasmuch as the relevant records would not be available for making necessary verification. He, therefore, submitted that this is a case wherein this Court ought not to entertain the writ petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. 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 herein below:- “ 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 court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 17 . In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 17 . In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons — who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 6. From a perusal of the above quoted paragraphs, it is seen that the Supreme Court in the said judgment had categorically observed that the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be exercised when the Petitioner has been negligent in approaching the Court on the ground of delay and laches. 7. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels finds it pertinent to observe that there is no explanation as to why the Petitioner has approached this Court after 8 years. 8. Taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others (supra) it is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner had acted as Kumbhakarna and Rip Van Winkle, and as such, it is the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for which this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition. 9. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. 9. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. Before parting with the record, this Court however observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the Petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court, if so otherwise permissible under the law. The instant order shall not prejudice the Petitioner if the Petitioner approached the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.