Gauhati High Court
The Union Of India And 2 Ors. Represented ... vs Bhabani Print And Publication And 4 Ors. ... on 19 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010288392023
2025:GAU-AS:1753-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3581/2024
In W.A. No.12994/2022 (Filing Number)
1: THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(DEPT. OF INDUSTRY POLICY AND PROMOTION) UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW
DELHI 110011
2: THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPT. OF INDUSTRY POLICY AND
PROMOTION) UDYOG BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110011
3: THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPT. OF INDUSTRY POLICY AND
PROMOTION) UDYOG BHAWAN NEW DELHI 11001
VERSUS
1: BHABANI PRINT AND PUBLICATION AND 4 ORS. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP FIRMS 1932, HAVING ITS
PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BHABANI COMPLEX, HATISILA, PANIKHAITI,
GHY.-26, ASSAM AND REP. BY ON OF ITS PARTNER SRI BIBHAS DEV.
2:SRI BIBHAS DEV
S/O LATE ANANDA DEV RESIDENT OF 7 LACHIT LANE
RAJGARH ROAD GUWAHATI 781007
3:THE GENERALMANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
CENTRE BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021
4:THE COMMISSIONER INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021
5:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BBY THE COMMISSIONER AND
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
DEPT. ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI
Page No.# 2/7
For the Applicant/Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Goswami, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Sarma
and Mr S.K. Deka, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
19.02.2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
The matter comes upon for consideration of the present interlocutory
application preferred on behalf of the applicants under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 with a prayer to condone the delay, calculated by the
Registry as 1636 days, however, claimed by the applicants as 920 days in filing
the connected writ appeal.
In the connected writ appeal, the applicants have challenged the
judgment dated 06.04.2018 passed in WP(C) No.7893/2015, whereby the
learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the non-
applicants and has set aside the minutes of the meeting of the State Level
Committee (SLC) held on 05.10.2015, whereby it has rejected the claim of the
writ petitioners for availing Central Capital Investment Subsidy (CCIS), and the
learned Single Judge has remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on the
CCIS claim of the petitioners in the light of the observations made in the
judgment dated 06.04.2018.
Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 06.04.2018, the applicants
preferred a review petition being Review Petition No.16/2021 before the learned
Single Judge. However, the said review petition was also dismissed on
16.03.2022 and, thereafter, the connected writ appeal has been preferred on
29.10.2022 along with the present interlocutory application seeking condonation
Page No.# 3/7
of delay in filing the connected writ appeal.
Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India,
appearing for the applicants has submitted that after passing of the impugned
judgment dated 06.04.2018, the applicants decided to file a review petition
before the learned Single Judge and they preferred the same in the year 2021.
In the said review petition, the learned Single Judge issued notices on
17.03.2021 and thereafter dismissed the same on 16.03.2022 on merits. After
dismissal of the review petition, the applicants, after obtaining legal opinion
from the conducting counsel as well as from the Department of Legal Affairs,
took a decision to challenge the impugned judgment by way of writ appeal and
accordingly the conducting counsel was instructed on 05.07.2022 to prepare the
appeal. On 16.09.2022, the conducting counsel was requested for amendments
in the draft of the appeal and the fresh draft so submitted by the conducting
counsel was approved by the competent authority on 18.10.2022 and,
thereafter, the appeal was preferred on 29.10.2022.
The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that since the
decision of filing the appeal is required to go through various stages before
taking the final decision, it took time in filing the connected writ appeal.
Therefore, the delay caused in filing the connected writ appeal is bona fide and
not intentional. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing the connected
appeal may kindly be condoned.
Per contra, Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the
non-applicants has vehemently opposed the application and has argued that
since there is a huge delay in filing the connected appeal and the applicants
have not been able to provide any satisfactory explanation, no case for
condoning the delay is made out. It is argued that against the impugned
Page No.# 4/7
judgment dated 06.04.2018, the Department preferred a review petition on
12.01.2021 before the learned Single Judge, however, no explanation for the
delay caused in filing the review petition was offered. It is further contended
that after the dismissal of the review petition, the applicants have filed the
connected writ appeal only on 29.10.2022 and for the said delay also no
satisfactory explanation is offered in the present interlocutory application. The
learned senior counsel has submitted that, as a matter of fact, the applicants
are required to offer satisfactory explanation for the period consumed in filing
the connected writ appeal from the date the impugned judgment dated
06.04.2018 has been passed. However, from the bare perusal of the contents of
the delay condonation application, it is clear that no satisfactory explanation is
offered by the applicants.
The learned senior counsel, while relying on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Postmaster General & Ors. -Vs- Living
Media India Limited & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563; State of Uttar
Pradesh -Vs- Amar Nath Yadav, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422 and
Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. -Vs- Special Deputy
Collector (LA), reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513, has argued that in the
above referred judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held
that the Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if
sufficient cause has been explained but that exercise of power is discretionary in
nature and may not be exercised where there is inordinate delay, negligence
and want of due diligence even if sufficient cause is established. It is contended
that in the above referred judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
highlighted that the Courts should not condone the delay in a routine and casual
manner and can only condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown by the
Page No.# 5/7
person, who has approached the Court with a delay. It is contended that, in the
present case, as sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants, the
application seeking condonation of delay in filing the connected writ appeal is
bereft of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents vide judgment dated
06.04.2018. Dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge,
there were two options available to the applicants, i.e. either to file a review
petition before the learned Single Judge, or to file a writ appeal challenging the
impugned judgment. However, the applicants have opted to file a review
petition but the same was filed only on 12.01.2021, i.e. after around 2(two)
years and 9(nine) months from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.
It is a fact that in the said review petition, no application for condonation of
delay was filed, however, only an assertion was made in the review petition that
the delay was caused on account of COVID 19 situation and frequent lock-down
imposed by the Government.
The respondents, in response to the notice issued by the learned
Single Judge in the review petition, did file their affidavit-in-opposition and in
the said affidavit, they specifically raised the objection that the review petition
was barred by limitation. However, it appears that the learned Single Judge has
not gone into the question of delay in filing the review petition and has decided
the review petition on merits, resulting in dismissal of it vide order dated
16.03.2022.
It is true that the applicants were required to show sufficient cause for
Page No.# 6/7
filing the review petition with a delay, however, when the learned Single Judge
has decided the review petition on merits, we are of the view that the question
of delay in filing the review petition is now not relevant.
In Paragraphs 4 & 5 of this application, the applicants have explained
the delay caused in filing the connected writ appeal after the delivery of the
decision in the review petition. Relevant portion of Paragraphs 4 & 5 are
reproduced herein:-
"4. That upon dismissal of the Review Petition No.16/2021, the matter
was informed to the applicants by the conducting counsel. Thereafter, on the
request of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, the conducting
counsel tendered a legal opinion on 29.05.2022 as to the feasibility of
preferring a writ appeal in the instant case. The Department vide its letter
dated 05.07.2022 requested the counsel to proceed with filing of the writ
appeal. Accordingly, preparation of writ appeal was undertaken. However,
since an opinion of the Department of Legal Affairs on an important issue
was awaiting, the option of filing of the Writ Appeal was kept on hold.
5. That thereafter the department re-considered the matter and
decided to file writ appeal against the judgment and order dated
06.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.7893/2015 and by letter dated
15.07.2022 requested to prepare the appeal by incorporating some
additional grounds to substantiate the Department's stand. The same was
accordingly forwarded to the authorities on 06.09.2022. The department
again requested for some amendments to be made and the same was
informed to the learned counsel on 16.09.2022. Accordingly, necessary
corrections were made and the draft was approved by the competent
authority on 18.10.2022 and forwarded to the learned counsel. The appeal
was thereafter filed on 29.10.2022 after making ready all annexures. In the
process there has been a delay of 920 days as reported by the Registry in
filing the appeal."
It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time in various
pronouncements has emphasized that the delay is to be explained by showing
sufficient cause and same is also applicable for the Government Departments
Page No.# 7/7
but it is also to be taken into consideration that the decision to challenge a
Court's order is taken at various levels and in that process, some time is likely to
be consumed. The explanation offered by the applicants in Paragraphs 4 & 5 of
the present application cannot be termed as mere excuses and we find some
merit in the same.
Otherwise also, the issue involved in this case is regarding availment of
the benefit by the firms under CCIS, which, of course, is a Policy matter, any
judicial decision in such a Policy matter is likely to have impact on similar claims.
Therefore, we are of the view that the dispute raised in the connected writ
appeal requires consideration on merits.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the
connected writ appeal is liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the present
interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in filing the connected writ
appeal is condoned.
Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list the same
for admission after 10(ten) days.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
