High Court of Meghalaya
Listina Basaiawmoit vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 5 March, 2024
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No. 20 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Regular List AT SHILLONG
MC (WA) No. 29 of 2023
Date of order: 05.03.2024
Listina Basaiawmoit
Vs
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by
the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,
Health and Family Welfare Department, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. The Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,
Personnel ADMV Reforms (B) Department,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
3. The Director of Health Services (ML) Health Complex,
Laitumkhrah Shillong, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
4. The District Medical & Health Officer,
West Khasi Hills District,
Nongstoin.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Applicant : Mr R. Gurung, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mrs T. Yangi B., AAG with
Mrs S. Bhattacharjee, GA
Mrs I. Lyngwa, GA
This application has been filed to condone the delay of 109 days
in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated
28.03.2023.
2. The main reason given in the application is that the petitioner
is residing in the remote village of Mairang, West Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya. On account of non-availability of the internet, the petitioner
could not communicate with the Counsel for preferring the writ appeal.
3. Learned AAG appearing for the respondents would submit
that the reason given by the petitioner is not genuine and that the delay
is not properly explained.
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
witha view to enable the Concerned Court to take a liberal view
with a view to secure the ends of justice."
5. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is living in a remote
village belonging to a tribal community, there is a possibility of non-
communication with the Counsel in preferring the appeal. No prejudice
is going to cause to the respondents if the delay is condoned. Therefore,
MC (WA) No. 29 of 2023 is allowed and the delay of 103 days is
condoned.
6. Registry is directed to diarize the appeal if it is otherwise in
order.
7. List the appeal for admission on 08.04.2024.
(W. Diengdoh) (S. Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
05.03.2024
"Sylvana PS"
