Gauhati High Court
The State Of Assam And 3 Ors vs Alaka Kalita And Anr on 5 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010036852022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A. (Civil) No.578 of 2022
In Writ Appeal No.2274/2022 (Filing Number)
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI 781006
2: THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019
3: THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
NALBARI ASSAM
4: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
NALBARI ASSAM
VERSUS
ALAKA KALITA AND ANR.
W/O SRI APURBA KUMAR TALUKDAR ,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO BANGAON,
DIST BARPETA .ASSAM
2:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
BODOLAND AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : SC, ELEM. EDU
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC
Page No.# 2/4
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 05-08-2022
(R.M. Chhaya, CJ.)
Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted by
Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, counsel Education
(Elementary) Department, appearing for the applicants/appellants. Also
heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Deka,
learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
By way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 read with Rule 2(2) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules,
the applicants/appellants/ original respondents have prayed for condonation
of delay of 378 days in preferring the connected writ appeal.
The learned counsels appearing for the parties have reiterated
their respective contentions raised in the application as well as in the
affidavit-in-opposition.
As can be culled out from the record of the petition, the impugned
order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.01.2019 in WP(C)
No.1728/2015. Whereas according to the applicants, there was some error
apparent on the face of the record. Instead of challenging the said order by
way of a substantive writ appeal before this Court, the applicants preferred
a review petition being Review Petition No.7/22, which came to be
dismissed by an order dated 08.02.2022 and thereafter the present appeal
is filed challenging the order dated 22.01.2019 passed in WP(C)
No.1728/2015 as well as the order dated 08.02.2022 passed in Review
Page No.# 3/4
Petition No.7/2022. The present appeal as per record was filed on
23.02.2022.
Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner has objected to the condonation of delay.
According to the learned senior counsel, there is no day to day explanation.
In this connection, the learned senior counsel, however, has relied upon a
catena of judgments of the Apex Court in Postmaster General & Ors.
-Vs- Living Media India Limited & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563;
in University of Delhi -Vs- Union of India & Ors. , reported in (2020) 13
SCC 745 and in Cognizance for extension limitation, in re, reported in
(2022) 3 SCC 117, which are forming part of the record of this application.
However, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the fact, it is a
matter of fact that the applicants filed a review petition and the review
petition was dismissed on 08.02.2022 and thereafter the present writ
appeal is filed on 23.02.2022. As such, challenging the order dated
22.01.2019 passed in WP(C) No.1728/2015, there is a technical delay of
387 days. Otherwise, it appears from the record that the appeal is filed on
23.02.2022, i.e. within the period of limitation from the date of passing the
order dated 08.02.2022 in Review Petition No.7/2022. Even though we
agree with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited
before us, the facts of the present application are different and, therefore,
the same are not applicable to the present case.
Considering the peculiar facts of this application and as per the
averments made in the application, the applicants have been able to
establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 387 days, more
particularly, as the applicants instead of filing the substantive writ appeal
Page No.# 4/4
preferred to file a review petition and the time consumed in that
proceedings have resulted into further delay.
In totality of facts, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
applicants should be given an opportunity to plead their case on merits and
should not be ousted on ground of delay alone. Accordingly, the delay is
condoned and the interlocutory application is allowed.
Registry to register and number the connected appeal and list the
same for admission hearing on 31.08.2022.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
