Greater Phulbari Area Deficit School vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 80 Meg

High Court of Meghalaya

Greater Phulbari Area Deficit School vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors on 28 February, 2024

Serial No.01
Regular List

                     HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                            AT SHILLONG
 MC (WA) No.1/2024
                                                Date of Order: 28.02.2024
 Greater Phulbari Area Deficit School Vs.        State of Meghalaya & ors
 Retired Teachers & Employees Association
 Coram:
           Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
           Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
 Appearance:
 For the Applicant                  : Mrs. R. Dutta, Adv
 For the Respondent                 : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with

Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA

This application has been filed to condone the delay of 122 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2023.

2. Heard Mrs. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG with Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

3. The State has serious objection for condoning the delay.

4. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been given for condoning the delay. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Postmaster General and Others V. Living Media India Limited and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 and N.Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 124, if the delay has been satisfactorily explained, the same can be condoned. These judgments have also been followed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Ruskim

Sea Foods Limited vs. M/s.Evergreen Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., reported in MANU/TN/0876/2018 in which one of us (S.Vaidyanathan,J) was a party, wherein it has been held as follows:

"32. Ordinarily, the 'Condonation of Delay' is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the Concerned Court. Also, it is true that the length and breadth of delay is not relevant, but the acceptance of explanation can only be a relevant criterion for the concerned Court to deal with/condone the aspect of 'Condonation of Delay'. However, in this regard, the Petitioner /concerned litigant is to offer / ascribe sufficient reasons or project sufficient cause or good cause to condone the delay with a view to enable the Concerned Court to take a liberal view with a view to secure the ends of justice."

5. To be precise, even if the delay is short and there is no proper explanation forthcoming, the delay need not be condoned. Similarly, despite the fact that the delay is enormous, sufficient reasons are given thereunder, the delay can be condoned.

6. In the present case on hand, the delay is also short and sufficient reasons have been given, which are acceptable by us to condone the delay. Hence, MC (WA) No.1 of 2024 is allowed and the delay of 122 days is condoned.

7. Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise inorder and list the appeal in the usual course.

   (B. Bhattacharjee)                                 (S. Vaidyanathan)
         Judge                                            Chief Justice


Meghalaya
28.02.2024
"Lam DR-PS"