Hemam Manorama Devi vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 9344 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Hemam Manorama Devi vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 5 December, 2025

Author: K.R. Surana

Bench: K.R. Surana

                                                                          Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010171522025




                                                                   undefined

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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2743/2025

            HEMAM MANORAMA DEVI
            WIFE OF HIJAM HOMENDRO SINGH, SUBJECT TEACHER MATHEMATICS,
            RESIDENT OF BVFCL COLONY, NAMRUP QUARTER NO 132/HT/E, PO
            PARBATPUR, DISTRICT DIBRUGARH,ASSAM-786623



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA,
            DEPARTMENT OF FERTILIZERS, MINISTRY OF CHEMICAL AND
            FERTILIZERS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001

            2:THE BRAHMAPUTRA VALLEY FERTILIZER CORPORATION LTD.
            A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING NAMRUP
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
             PO PARBATPUR
             PS NAMRUP
             DISTRICT DIBRUGARH
            ASSAM-786623

            3:THE UNION OF INDIA
             MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
             SHASTRI BHAWAN
             NEW DELHI-11000

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S DUTTA,

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.,




                                           BEFORE
                                                                           Page No.# 2/3

                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
               HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

                                        ORDER

Date : 05-12-2025

(K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC for the respondent nos.1 and 3.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the affidavit dated 31.10.2025 and has submitted that notice was served on the respondent no. 2 by way of dasti. On a perusal of the service report, it appears that notice was received by one Meenakshi Phukan, Assistant, CMD Secretariat on 23.10.2025. Accordingly, notice is accepted to be deemly served. However, none appears for the respondent no.2.

3. By filing this IA under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 18 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected review petition against the judgment and order dated 13.06.2025 passed in WA 233/2025.

4. The learned CGC has opposed the prayer for condoning delay. However, considering the explanation tendered, the Court is inclined to accept the explanation as good and sufficient cause which prevented the applicant from filing the connected review petition.

5. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected review petition stands condoned.

6. In the meantime, a copy of the connected review petition be served on the learned CGC.

7. This application stands allowed.

Page No.# 3/3

8. The Registry shall now register the connected review petition and list the same.

                               JUDGE                JUDGE




Comparing Assistant