Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010223452024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3812/2024 JYOTIRMOY CHOUDHARY S/O LATE CHITTRANJAN CHOUDHURY, R/O 2ND LINK ROAD, BYE LANE NO.11, HOUSE NO.22, SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ITS COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GHY-37 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM 4:THE JT. DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GHY-3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P SARMAH, MR.R P SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 29.01.2025 Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. J. Bora, learned counsel for the respondents. This application is directed for recalling the order dated 02.05.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 2421 of 2013 whereby the writ petition stood dismissed for want of prosecution. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the advocate on records was not reflected on the cause list and consequently the concerned Advocate on record failed to appear in the Court or inform or engaged Mr. Sarmah to appear in the matter consequently this matter stood dismissed for non prosecution. The learned counsel for the respondents do not object to the prayer for restoration of the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the grounds urged in support of prayer for restoration, this Court finds that the applicant has been able to justify his non appearance on the concerned date on which the matter has been disposed of. It is also seen that there are some delay in filing the restoration petition which the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact of dismissal of the writ petition came to be knowledge of the petitioner after several months consequently thereto the steps have been taken for filing the restoration petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon Page No.# 3/3 consideration of the grounds urged, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged can be considered to be sufficient explanation of the delay that had occurred in filing the accompanying petition. The explanation put forth for the delay that has occurred does not reveal any mala fides nor can it be seen as dilatory tactics. On the grounds urged in the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds that the delay that had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal can be condoned. Relying upon the principle laid down in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the delay in filing the accompanying petition in W.P.(C) No. 2421/2013 is hereby condoned. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant