Putul Nath @ Putul Ch. Nath vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1133 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010205432016




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/683/2016

            PUTUL NATH @ PUTUL CH. NATH
            S/O LT. HARENDRA NATH, R/O VILL. CHAKCHAKA BAZAR, P.S. SORBHOG,
            DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS,
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH
            ENGINEERING L.R. DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

            2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
             DIST- BARPETA

            3:THE CHAIRMAN
             DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE ON COMPASSIONATE
            GROUND
             BARPETA
            ASSAM

            4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
             BAMNAGAR
             REVENUE CIRCLE
             SORBHOG
             P.O. and P.S. SORBHOG
             DIST- BARPETA
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.M B U AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                 Page No.# 2/4




Linked Case :

SRI PUTUL NATH @ PUTUL CHANDRA NATH



VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS


2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL

KOKRAJHAR BTAD AREA
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE BTC
KOKRAJHAR.
3:THE SECRETARY

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
 BTC
 KOKRAJHAR
 BTAD.
 4:THE DIRECTOR

PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
 BTC
 KOKRAJHAR.
 5:MOSA DIGAL

CORRAMORE.
6:MOHIT DAIMARY

SANTIPUR.
7:NARESH BAGLARY

PUB KHOIRABARI.
8:MANINDRA DEKA

BARANGABARI.
9:PANI RAM KHERKATARI

ATHGHARI.
10:SIRING TAMANG

NEPALI BASTI.
                                                                     Page No.# 3/4

           11:NAGESWAR DAS

          NAJULI BASTI.
          12:BISWAJIT BORO

          BANGURUM.
          13:KHANEN LAHARI

          NO.2 BANGURUM 5 TO 13 ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE VCDC OF SANTIPUR
          UNDER NO. 38 BHAIRABKUNDA
          S.T. CONSTITUENCY UNDER UDALGURI
          DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
          DIST. UDALGURI
          BTAD.
          ------------

Advocate for :

Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS

For applicant : Mr. MBU Ahmed, Advocate

For respondents : Ms. S. Konwar, Junior Government Advocate, Assam

-BEFORE-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

21-03-2023

By this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant/appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 205 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2302/2015.

Page No.# 4/4

Learned counsel for the applicant referring to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application submitted that because of the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, there was a delay which occurred in filing the connected appeal.

Learned Government Advocate does not object to the prayer for condonation of delay.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the grounds urged in support of the condonation of delay, it is seen that the delay has been sufficiently explained by the applicant. The explanation does not smack of malafides and it does not appear that it is put forth as a part of dilatory tactics. In absence of any specific objections from the respondents to the contrary and also considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, this Court considers it appropriate to condone the delay, as prayed for. Accordingly, the delay of 205 days which had occurred in filing the connected appeal is condoned.

The interlocutory application is allowed. Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list the same for admission in due course.

            JUDGE                                CHIEF JUSTICE



Comparing Assistant