Mridul Dev Adhikary vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 28 January, 2026

                                                                    Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010186782025




                                                             undefined

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

                          Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2971/2025

         MRIDUL DEV ADHIKARY
         S/O LATE MUKUNDA MOHAN ADHIKARY, BISHNU NAGAR, H. NO 39,
         HARICHARAN DAS PATH, LOKHRA ROAD, LOKHRA, GUWAHATI, DIST.
         KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781040



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY., DEPTT. OF FOREST
         AND ENVIRONMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781005

         2:THE CHAIRMAN

          POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
          BAMUNIMAIDAM
          GUWAHATI 781021

         3:THE MEMBER SECY.

          POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
          BAMUNIMAIDAM
          GUWAHATI 781021

         4:UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

          DISTANCE EDUCATION BUREAU
          35 FEROZE SHAH ROAD
          NEW DELHI 110001

         5:MANOJ SAIKIA

          S/O REBA KANTA SAIKIA
                                                                          Page No.# 2/6

             SANKAR HOUSING COMPLEX SHANTI NIWAS
             BLOCK NO. 1
             FIRST FLOOR
             NORTH JALUKBARI
             GUWAHATI 781014
             DIST KAMRUP
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. M DEV, MS N DEB,MS P DEB

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PCB, SC, FOREST DEPTT.,Y N MAHANTA, ADV.




                                    BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

                                         ORDER

Date : 28.01.2026

Heard Ms. M. Dev. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Forest Department.

By way of this interlocutory application, the applicant is seeking condonation of 107 days for preferring the Review Petition.

It is contended by the applicant that after obtaining the certified copy of the Judgment & Order dated 22.04.2025, due to the time taken for collecting consulting advocates, collecting documents from the Sikkim Manipal University and due to the geographical challenges faced by the applicant in Sikkim, a delay of 107 days has occurred.

Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Forest Department, submits that he has received no instruction to oppose the said prayer.

Page No.# 3/6

Having perused the application and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is apparent that due to reasons beyond the control of the applicant, the review petition could not be filed within stipulated time period. The relevant paragraphs of the interlocutory application reads as under:

"3.That after obtaining certified copy of the judgment and order on 22.04.2025, the Applicant /Review Petitioner consulted with one Mr. M.P Sharma, Advocate on 26.04.2025 for filing of the Review Petition before this Hon'ble Court who advised the Applicant/Review Petitioner to collect document from the Sikkim Manipal University and the Applicant was given to understand that there was no limitation for filing Review Petition against the judgment and order passed in a Writ Petition after discovering new document. Due to severe landslide and rainfall in Sikkim the Applicant/Review Petitioner could not proceed to Sikkim in the month of May and June 2025, for getting proper information immediately, keeping in mind that he would get sufficient time to file a Review Petition. On 13th July 2025, the Applicant/Review Petitioner went to Sikkim and submitted an application before the Vice-Chancellor, Sikkim Manipal University on 14th July 2025, whereby he enquired about the validity of M.Sc Degree in Ecology and Environment under distance mode. In response to said application dated 14.07.2025, the authority of Sikkim Manipal University on 15.07.2025 had given a certificate with Annexures mentioned in the certificate whereby certifying that the Applicant/Review Petitioner was admitted to Master of Science in Ecology and Environment Programme (Distance Mode) in 2004 and successfully completed in December 2006. In the aforesaid certificate it is mentioned that the Degree confers to Mridul Dev Adhikary is protected under the Category 1 by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim dated 26 th June 2015 in W.P (c) 4/2013 and dated 29th June 2015 in W.P (C) 8/2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had confirmed both the orders in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26223 of 2015 dated 21.09.2015 and they are available on the official website of UGC. UGC's letter to Royal Danish Embassy (Annexure-3) and to High Commission of Australia. The Applicant received with the certificate dated 15.07.2025, copy of the order dated 28.08.2001 of the UGC to Pro-Chancellor SMU, copy of Page No.# 4/6

the letter dated 29.08.2007 of the UGC to the SMU, copy of the Letter dated 08.10.2015 of the Additional Secretary, UGC to the Ambassador, the Royal Danish Embassy, copy of the Letter dated 08.10.2015 of the Additional Secretary of UGC to the Australian High Commissioner, High Commission of Australia which are annexed as Annexure- 9 (ii) Annexure-9 (iii), Annexure- 9(iv) , Annexure-9 (v), Annexure-9 (vi) respectively in the Review Petition.

4. That the Applicant/ Review Petitioner returned home on 16.07.2025 and after the certificate dated 15.07.2025 of the SMU, the Applicant/Review Petitioner with due diligence started to search and found on 18.07.2025 that the University Grant Commission approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26223 of 2015 against the order dated 26.06.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 04/2013 and order dated 29.06.2015 passed in W.P No. 08/2015, and both the cases heard together and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the cases preferred by the University Grant Commission and confirmed the judgment passed in the Writ Petitions of the High Court of Sikkim. In the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim passed in W.P(c) 8/2015 (Pralhad Dani Chhetri and Ors .Vs. Union of India & Ors). It is held that 3 (three) category of student are protected, they are (I). Those who had commenced and completed their DEP any time prior to the academic session 2011-2012 (II.) Those who had commenced with their DEP prior to the academic session 2011-2012 but, computed after that and (III.) Those who "Were admitted to the DEP any day after the interim order of the Court dated 22.02.2013 passed during the proceeding of Sikkim Manipal University (Supra) by which operation of the condition ---" but not beyond the boundary of their respective states stipulated in the decision of the DEC in its 40th Meeting dated 08.06.2012 Annexure-P-34, was stayed and the Respondent No.4 University was permitted to continue to act in accordance with the communication dated 15.10.2009 Annexure-P- 27 subject to the compliance of the terms thereof which are annexed as Annexure-9(vii) and Annexure-9 (viii) in the Review Petition.

5. That thereafter since 19.07.2025, the Applicant had been suffering from viral fever and not in a position to go out from his house to collect the brief and after some recovery, he went to the chamber of his earlier counsel on 27.07.2025 and collected his briefs.

Page No.# 5/6

6. That as the Applicant was very weak therefore he was unable to consult any Advocate immediately but suddenly on 31.07.2025 night he fell down inside his house due to weakness and on 01.08.2025 the Applicant consulted with a doctor who advised him to take complete rest for 2 (two) weeks.

7. That as per advice of the friend of the Applicant, on 15.08.2025 the Applicant came to the chamber of present Advocate who after consultation had apprised the Applicant that the limitation period for filing Review Petition is only 1 (one) month. On wrong advice, the Applicant had spent a long time for filing the Review Petition but after discovery of all new documents till 18.07.2025, the Applicant fell ill and could not approach any other Advocate. The Applicant after consultation with the present counsel on 15.08.2025, requested the counsel to prepare the Review Petition. The present counsel prepared the Review Petition on 17.08.2025 and the Affidavit is sworn on 18.08.2025. Hence, the delay in filing the Review Petition, which was not deliberate or intentional and the delay in filing the Review Petition beyond the control of the Applicant / Review Petitioner.

8. That the Applicant submits that he was given to understand by Mr. M.P. Sharma, Advocate that there is no limitation for filing Review Petition against the order /judgment passed in Writ Petition and due to wrong advice of the counsel the Applicant could not file the Review Petition in time. The new documents have been discovered till 18.07.2025 and after receiving the copies of the documents, within 30 days the Applicant has filed the present Review Petition."

The reasons for delay pleaded in the interlocutory application as extracted herein above appears to be bona fide and sufficient. Accordingly, the delay of 107 days is condoned.

In view of the above, the interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of.

Page No.# 6/6

Let the connected Review Petition be registered and numbered.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant