[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Assam Power Distribution Co Ltd (Apdcl) ... on 18 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010042902026
2026:GAU-AS:3883-
DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./50/2026
M/S SANYEEJI SIPAT ALI AND ANR
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 9,
BRINDABAN MARKET, S.J. ROAD, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI 781001, ASSAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2: SHRI DHIRAJ KUMAR JAISWAL
S/O SHRI J.P. JAISWAL
DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT NO 1
R/O HOUSE NO 29A
SAL SARNAM
BILPAR
CHABNIPOOL
REHABARI
GUWHATI 781008
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD (APDCL) AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJULI
BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI 781001
2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL)
APDCL
BIJULI BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001
3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D)
APDCL
BIJULI BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
Page No.# 2/7
GUWAHATI 781001
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (TI)
APDCL
BIJULI BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001
5:THE DEPUTY MANAGER (TI)
APDCL
LAR
BIJULI BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001
6:THE AREA MANAGER
IRCA II
APDCL
JALUKBARI
GUWAHATI 781012
7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GE II
APDCL
GARIGAON JALUKBARI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY, MR. R CHOUDHURY,MS. V RAI,JYOTISH DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL,
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/27/2026
M/S SANYEEJI ISPAT LTD. AND ANR
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 9
BRINDABAN MARKET
S.J. ROAD
ATHGAON
GUWAHATI-781001
ASSAM.REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
2: SHRI DHIRAJ KUMAR JAISWAL
DIRECTOR OF APPLICANT NO. 1
R/O HOUSE NO. 29A
SAI SARNAM
Page No.# 3/7
BILPAR
CHABNIPOOL
REHABARI
GUWAHATI - 781008
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD APDCL
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
BIJULI BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI - 781001
2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL)
APDCL
BIJULIBHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI - 781001
3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D)
APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (TI)
APDCL
BIJULI BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001
5:THE DEPUTY MANAGER (TI)
APDCL
LAR
BIJULI BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001
6:THE AREA MANAGER
IRCA II
APDCL
JALUKBARI
GUWAHATI 781012
7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GE II
APDCL
GARIGAON
JALUKBARI
------------
Page No.# 4/7
Advocate for : MR. S P ROY
Advocate for : SC
APDCL appearing for ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD APDCL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
18-03-2026
(AD Choudhury, J)
1. The present application is filed seeking a recall/review of the
order dated 11.02.2026 passed in IA (Civil) 27/2026, by which
the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.
2. The present review application is filed primarily on the ground
that the finding of this Bench in order dated 11.02.2026 that
the petitioners opted to wait for the outcome of the decision
of the appellate authority on remand before filing the appeal
before this Court constitutes an error apparent on the face of
the record for the reason that the writ appeal was actually
filed long before the review hearing of the order dated
31.12.2025.
3. Secondly, it is urged that the learned counsel for the APDCL
suppressed the aforesaid material fact and asserted that the
petitioner participated in the review proceeding and only
thereafter challenged the judgment of the learned Single
Judge.
Page No.# 5/7
4. The law is well settled that a review application is maintainable
on discovery of new and important matters or evidence
which, even after exercise of due diligence, was not within
the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by
him when the decree was passed, or the order was made.
Secondly, such a review application shall be maintainable on
account of such mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record or for any other sufficient reason.
5. The material error, to exercise the power of review, must be
manifest on the face of the order and would result in a
miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness.
6. The error apparent on the face of the record shall mean an
error that is self-evident and no process of reasoning is
required to detect such error. Therefore, when an error is not
self-evident and is required to be detected by the process of
reasoning, such error cannot be described as an error
apparent on the face of the record.
7. It is also equally well settled that while exercising review
jurisdiction, a Court cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive
at a different conclusion, even when two views are possible in
a matter.
8. It is well settled that any other sufficient reasons shall mean "a
reason sufficient on the grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule.
9. Now coming to the case in hand, this court declined to
condoned the delay not principally on the ground that the
Page No.# 6/7
petitioner awaited for the result of statutory Appellate
authority on remand by the learned single judge, rather this
court has specifically recorded that the direction issued by
the learned Single Judge impugned in the connected appeal
has already been given effect to; the appellate authority on
remand based on the order of the learned Single Judge has
also decided the issue and directed the assessing authority for
a fresh reassessment exercise and therefore, the applicants
shall be still at liberty to assail such decision of the appellate
authority before the appropriate forum.
10. This court further recorded that the ground of delay pleaded in
the application reveals that the applicants' grievance
revolves around the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Appellate
Authority to entertain a review petition, which cannot be
permitted in a condonation petition. Similar arguments on
merit have been made repeated orally in the present
proceeding.
11. Thirdly, it was recorded that the applicants have miserably
failed to give any justification in the condonation petition for
the delay in filing the appeal, except by questioning the
jurisdiction of the appellate authority to entertain a review
petition and the correctness of the decision of the learned
Single Judge relegating the respondents to seek a review of
the order under challenge in the said writ petition, after
interfering with the same.
12. Thus, this court found that the applicants had failed to show
Page No.# 7/7
sufficient cause for condonation of the delay.
13. The grounds sought in the present review petition, even if
assumed to be correct, cannot be treated as an error
apparent on the face of the record, and such alleged
incorrect findings have no bearing on the final conclusion and
determination made in our order dated 11.02.2026, passed in
IA(Civil) 27/2026 nor does undermine its soundness
14. Accordingly, this court is of the view that no case for review is
made out and therefore, the present case stands dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
