Law protects the diligent, not the indolent, says Karnataka High Court

The high court has rejected the petition filed by a contractor, seeking payment for the work done during 2009-11, observing that ‘law protects the diligent and not the indolent’.

The petition was filed in 2021 with a claim that the contractor had completed the construction of a Morarji Desai Residential School in Chamarajanagar district during 2009-2011.

The petitioner, K Ramachandra Raju, was a successful bidder in the tender invited by the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (KREIS) in 2009 to construct a residential school at Hangala village, Gundlupet taluk of Chamarajanagar district. The petitioner claimed to have completed the work in terms of the contract in 2011.

KREIS had sent a communication to all successful bidders, who were performing the work, to appear for the measurement of their works.

The petitioner did not participate in the proceedings, but issued a legal notice to KREIS in January 2021, close to nine years after the communication on measurement.

The petitioner claimed before the high court that he was knocking on the doors of KREIS all these years hoping that a payment of Rs 1.5 crore would be made.

On the other hand, KREIS argued that a communication was sent to the petitioner on May 27, 2011 itself asking to show proof of the work performed by him.

It was also submitted that the petitioner had withdrawn the earnest money deposit (EMD) without demur.

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that in Hameed Joharan vs Abdul Salam case (2001), the apex court had clearly held that law courts never tolerate an indolent litigant since delay defeats equity.

The court said that any equity that was present in favour of the petitioner in the year 2009 is defeated by sheer delay for approaching the court.

“It is for the first time the writ petition is preferred on April 6, 2021, seeking a payment for the work that he had performed in the year 2009, which is again in dispute, as no measurement is available with the respondents, as the petitioner himself did not participate in the measurement drive for him to claim any amount. It is trite law that mere making of representations which were never considered or statements that the petitioner was knocking on the doors of respondents for eons would not obviate delay,” the court said.