Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs Sangita Haloi Baruah And 4 Ors on 12 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010190802024
2025:GAU-
AS:15343-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2864/2024
MAMONI KALITA BEZBARUAH
W/O SRI DIPEN BEZBARUAH, RESIDENT OF PAZIPAR, PO BORBARI, DIST
NALBARI, ASSAM 781335
VERSUS
SANGITA HALOI BARUAH AND 4 ORS
W/O SRI PRASANTA BARUAH,
RESIDENT OF KHTAPAZIPARA, PO BORBARI, PS NALBARI, DIST NALBARI,
ASSAM 781335
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
3:THE DIRECTOR
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPUT. ASSM UZAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001
4:THE PROGRAMME OFFICER
DIVISIONAL ICDS CELL KOKRAJHAR
BTAD
ASSAM UZAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 01
5:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
NALBARI CUM CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTE
NALBARI DISTRICT ASSAM 781335
Page No.# 2/6
6:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PORJECT OFFICER
NALBARI ICDS NALBARI ASSAM 78133
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, MS C DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC,MR. D BHUYAN (R1),MR N SARMA (R1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
12.11.2025
(A.D.Choudhury, J).
1. We have heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the application. Also
heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. K.
Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant seeking
condonation of the delay of 1224 days in preferring an appeal against the
Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) No. 3023/2020.
3. The respondent No. 1 by filing the Writ Petition being WP(C)/3023/2020
assailed the selection and appointment of the applicant as Anganwadi Worker
in Paruwa Pazipar Anganwadi Centre.
4. The grievance of the respondent No. 1 raised in the writ petition was to
the effect that though she secured the highest mark in the selection process,
the authorities appointed the applicant by ignoring the better merit of the
respondent No. 1 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was not a
Page No.# 3/6
resident within the jurisdiction of the said Anganwadi Centre which is
required in terms of the Advertisement.
5. Relying on official record, the learned Single Judge concluded that the
respondent No. 1 was a resident within the jurisdiction of Paruwa Pazipar
Anganwadi Centre. Such judgment was delivered on 11.02.2021. Thereafter,
the respondent No. 1 within a period of 31 days, preferred a review petition
seeking review of the Judgment & Order dated 11.02.2021 passed in
WP(C)/3023/2020, which was registered as Review Petition No. 45/2021 and
the same was decided by an order dated 26.09.2023.
6. Being aggrieved, the connected Writ Appeal was filed on 20.07.2024. In
the meantime, there was a delay of 1224 days.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that though the review
petition was filed diligently, however, that was decided almost after two years
and therefore, the delay occurred during the pendency of the review is
required to be condoned inasmuch as referring to the decision of Privy
Council in Brij Indar Singh -Vs- Kanshi Ram 1917 AIR PC 156,
contends that while condoning the delay, the period taken in pursuing the
review petition has to be excluded as a general rule, unless, it is found that
review petition was pursued by the petitioner without any bona fide or only
as a dilatory tactics.
8. As regards the delay occurred from the date of judgment delivered till
filing of the connected writ appeal, the learned counsel for the applicant
contends that the applicant belongs to a lowest strata of the economic
pyramid and as such it took some time to gather requisite finance to come to
Guwahati to approach her counsel for filing the connected writ appeal.
Accordingly, the applicant met her counsel on 25.06.2024 and appeal could
Page No.# 4/6
be filed on 18.07.2024 as in between there was summer holidays.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant contends that there are
sufficient and justified causes which prevented the applicant to approach this
Court within the prescribed period of limitation.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 argues that
there is no proper explanation of delay in preferring the appeal. According to
the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, admittedly, the applicant
visited the chamber of the lawyer after 9 months from the date of delivery of
the review judgment; except financial difficulty, no other adequate reason
has been shown for such delay and therefore, such delay should not be
condoned.
10. The Apex Court in Sivamma (dead) Vs. Karnataka Housing Board
(2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899), has clarified the correct approach to be
adopted while exercising the discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963, inasmuch as it is held that the expression "within such period" under
Section 5 must be understood to mean the entire continuum from the date of
the limitation begins to run till the actual filing. The applicant must show
"sufficient cause" covering the whole of that period. It is equally well settled
that while the length of delay may vary, what is essential is the existence of
possible and bona fide reason inasmuch as the length of delay may be
immaterial and what matters is acceptability of the explanation. Sufficiency
of cause is the foundation of exercise of discretionary power under section 5
of the Limitation Act inasmuch as Section 5 is an exception to the rule
requiring the litigants to be vigilant and diligent in their endeavour for
pursuing legal remedies, and for that reason the negligence or inaction of the
litigant during prescribed period of limitation, have no place.
Page No.# 5/6
11. It is also well settled that the law of limitation is founded on public policy,
aimed at ensuring certainty and finality of litigation. However, it is not meant
to destroy the rights of diligent litigants or to perpetuate injustice in the
name of procedural rigidity. Thus, a justice oriented and pragmatic approach
must be adopted.
12. Coming to the case in hand, record reveals that the writ petition was
allowed on 11.02.2021 and the applicant had preferred a review petition,
which was dismissed on 26.09.2023. The review petition itself was filed
within 31 days and the time spent in the review proceeding is more than 923
days. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was not diligent in
preferring the review petition or that the delay in deciding the review is
attributed to the applicant.
13. It is the case of the applicant that owing to remote location of her place of
residence and financial constraints she could not immediately approach her
counsel for filing the appeal. The appellant could meet her counsel only on
25.06.2024, whereupon the memo of appeal was prepared. In the meantime,
the High Court remained closed for the summer vacation from 01.07.2024 to
14.07.2024 and the appeal was ultimately filed on 18.07.2024.
14. In the considered opinion of this court the explanation offered is
satisfactory and acceptable and it cannot be said that the explanation given
are with candour and supported by materials. It cannot be said in the given
facts of the present case that the applicant was either negligent. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the applicant was indolent or acted with
malafide intent. In our opinion the delay is neither deliberate nor
contumacious but occasioned by genuine circumstances.
15. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice and guided by the
Page No.# 6/6
principles laid down as recorded hereinabove, this court deems it appropriate
to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the writ appeal is
condoned.
16. List the connected appeal on 04.02.2026 for admission, if there is no
defect in filing.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
