Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040006962023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/93/2023 General Manager (Region) and Anr. Food Corporation of India, G.S. Road, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati. 2: The Area Manager Age: Occupation : Food Corporation of India District Office North Lakhimpur VERSUS M/s K.G.B Enterprise and 5 Ors. Represented by Shri Jarkar Gamlin, Son of Shri Borjar Gamlin, P.I. Colony, Dist. West Siang. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : to Govt. of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution Department of Food and Public Distribution Krishi Bhawan New Delhi 3:The Joint Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : to the Govt. of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution Department of Food and Public Distribution Krishi Bhawan New Delhi 4:The Secretary Page No.# 2/3 Age: 0 Occupation : Civil Supplies Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Civil Supplies Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun. 6:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : B K Singh, B Bora Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Tony Pertin,H K Jamoh,M Pertin BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA 11.03.2026 ORDER Heard Mr. B. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. K. Jamoh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1; Ms. P. Pangu, learned State counsel for respondent No. 6 and Mr. J. Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing counsel for Food and Civil Supplies Department representing respondent No. 4 & 5. 2. None appears for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Page No.# 3/3 3. Notice in the instant application was issued on 31.05.2023, however, no objection has been filed by any of the respondents till date. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 as well as respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have stated that they do not have any objection, if this Court condones the delay of 52 days in filing the connected review petition. 5. This Court has also gone through Paragraph Nos. 2 to 8, wherein, the delay has been explained by the applicant in the instant case. Being satisfied with the explanation that have been given in the aforesaid paragraphs as well as on the basis of submission that the respondents do not have any objection in condoning the delay, the delay of 52 days in filing the connected review petition is hereby condoned. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of, as allowed. 7. Registry is directed to list the connected Review Petition after 4 (four) weeks. JUDGE Comparing Assistant