SOHBAR SIRDARSHIP Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 -5 and Ms. P.S. Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. None appears for the respondent No. 7 without showing any cause.

(2.) THE main relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the State respondents to pay 50% share of the royalty to the writ petitioner prospectively w.e.f. the date of filing the said representation dated 12.04.2012 being the owner of the limestone quarry. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 -5 submits at the Bar that the issue/claim of the petitioner for sharing 50% of the royalty on limestone along with the State Govt. had already been decided by the learned Single Judge in writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. (SH)323/2009 vide judgment and order of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench dated 26.08.2011. The copy of the said judgment and order of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench dated 26.08.2011 is available at Annexure -O to the present writ petition. The relevant portions of the judgment and order of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench dated 26.08.2011 are reproduced hereunder: -

(3.) IN my opinion, the writ petition is barred by the principle of laches and is covered by the decisions of the Apex Court in Syed Maqbul Ali v. Sate of U.P.,, 2011 AIR SCW 3195 and State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, : (1995) 4 SCC 683. On the own showing of the petitioner that the Provincial Government of Assam had stopped payment of the royalty to him since 1952, there is no room for doubt that the petitioner has waived his right to claim the royalty in question or has acquiesced in to the deprivation of his right to claim the royalty by the State respondents by long passage of time. That apart, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay spanning over six decades in filing the writ petition. Repeated representations, it is trite, does not and cannot extend the cause of action. The principle of laches has been elaborately explained by a three -Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Digambar case (supra) at paragraph 14 of the judgment. This is what it said: