Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010072042025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1139/2025 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GHY- 781006 2: THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA-781019 3: THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS GOALPARA DISTRICT CIRCLE GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783101 VERSUS 1.MOINUL HOQUE S/O- LATE NUR MOHAMMAD R/O- MANASPUR SANTIPUR WARD NO.1 LAKHIPUR, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM-783101 2:SAMIRUDDIN TALUKDAR S/O. LT. M.U. TALUKDAR R/O. VILL.- RAJMITA P/O. RAJMITA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129. 3:THE PRINCIPAL OF JALESWAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL JALESWAR P/O. JALESWAR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783132 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education Department. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Kurmi, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mr. R. Islam, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mr. A.F.N.U. Molla, Advocate for respondent No.3. Page No.# 2/5 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 29.08.2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J) This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants/State of Assam seeking condonation of delay of 1959 days in preferring the connected writ appeal against the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.4409/2014. 2. The delay is explained in paragraphs Nos. 5 to 11 of the application. 3. Canvassing for the State, Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that it is evident from the paragraph Nos. 5 to 11 that the delay in filing the petition was result of necessary and unavoidable office formalities and the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. 4. It is further contended by Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel, that there was no deliberate and/or intentional lapse on the part of the officers. Rather, the State was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel also contends that a liberal approach may be adopted while condoning the delay, and this court may not take too strict and pedantic stand which may result injustice. In support, Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel, places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. –Vs- Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107. Page No.# 3/5 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relying on the determination by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The Chief Post Master General & Ors. -Vs.- Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 1056 contends that there is gross negligence on the part of the State authorities in approaching this Court within time and the causes shown at paragraph Nos. 5 to 11 cannot be termed as “sufficient cause” and therefore, such delay may not be condoned inasmuch as by now it is well settled that bureaucratic delay cannot be termed as sufficient cause. 6. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is true that a certain amount of latitude, considering impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology, is not impermissible; however, sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in a justice- oriented approach. It is by now well settled that Government may not be treated as any other private litigant, so far as it relates to condonation of delay, for the reason that the government’s decision to present and prosecute appeals is not an individual but an institutional decision, which necessarily goes by the proverb “red-tape”, however, there are limits to the same. In the case in hand, the approach of the State and its officers, in our considered opinion is nothing but stereotype explanation. Even if the period of Covid-19 pandemic is excluded in the backdrop of the statement made at paragraph 5, that due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the normal works were hampered which caused delay in examination/verification of the matter, the explanation given at paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 10, do not disclose any unavoidable circumstance and/or genuine difficulties, rather the person/persons Page No.# 4/5 of concerned department have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter. The applicants admittedly received a copy of the order dated 26.06.2019 on 05.11.2019, when the writ petitioners submitted it before them. The Department endorsed the file to the Judicial Department on 07.12.2020, i.e. after almost a year, without any whisper as to the reason for keeping it for a year. The Judicial Department opined in its endorsement dated 16.03.2021 for compliance of the order by adjusting the services of the writ petitioners and, if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts. Thereafter, on 23.07.2022, i.e. after more than 1 year, such a proposal was forwarded to the Finance Department. There is no explanation as to what prevented them in not sending the proposal to the Finance Department promptly and led the department to await more than one year to forward the proposal to the Finance Department. The Finance Department on 02.07.2024 requested the Education Department to re-submit the file along with the views of the learned Advocate General, Assam. Such a request was made by the Education Department to the Advocate General, Assam, on 16.07.2024, who in turn suggested preferring an appeal. After receiving the opinion of the Advocate General, Assam, dated 18.02.2025, the Department requested its Standing Counsel to prefer an appeal almost a year later, i.e., on 19.02.2025, and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 17.03.2025. 8. In the backdrop of the explanation given, the argument on behalf of the State that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and for genuine difficulties does not find favour of this Court. The facts detailed at paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 10, are nothing but a lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter. We also take note of the fact that the officers in the Department are well aware and/or conversant with the issues involved, including the prescribed period of Page No.# 5/5 limitation for filing a writ appeal. The State cannot be allowed to take advantage of the leeway granted to Government while condoning delay, only for the reason of bureaucratic delays, more particularly in a case like the present one, where plausible and acceptable explanation is absent inasmuch as delay cannot be condoned mechanically, merely because the Government or a wing of Government is a party before us. 9. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the applicants have failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 1959 days in preferring the connected appeal. 10. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. 11. Consequently, the connected writ appeal, which is yet to be registered, is also dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant