Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010236192024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3509/2024 NIRMAL BISWAKARMA S/O DHANBAHADUR BISWAKARMA, A RESIDENT OF JUGISUTI NEPALI GAON, KAJUA NEPALI N.C, PO JUGISUTI, PS DHAKUAKHANA, DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 787055 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE NORTH LAKHIMPUR LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 4:THE HEADMASTER OF JUGISUTI TRIBAL KONENG HIGH SCHOOL PO JUGUSUTI DIST LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 787055 5:JITUMONI KUMAL D/O SANGKAMAN KUMAL. VILLAGE KATALGURI PO NEMUTENGANI Page No.# 2/4 787055 DIST LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, A TALUKDAR,MR A HOSSAIN,MR G G GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR. N K KALITA (R-5) Linked Case : NIRMAL BISWAKARMA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS ------------ Advocate for : MR. J I BORBHUIYA Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 27.05.2025 Heard Mr. J I Bhorbhuiya, learned counsel for the, who submits that by filing this application, the applicant seeks condonation of 363 days delay in filing the connected review petition. Referring to the application, more particularly, Page No.# 3/4 paragraph No. 3 of the application, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware about the disposal of the writ petition, since he was neither informed by his counsel nor by the authority concerned. It was only on 28.09.2024 that the petitioner came to know about the order passed by this Court. The applicant, therefore consulted his present lawyer who advised him to collect the required documents. While applying for a certified copy of the Judgment dated 09.10.2023, the applicant also filed an FIR before Dhakuakhana Police Station on 21.10.2024 against his earlier engaged counsel due to manipulation and mis-representation committed by the said counsel. [2.] The learned counsel submits that due to the fault of his appointed counsel the applicant may not be made to suffer. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Radha Krishma Rai vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors., reported in (2000) 9 SCC 733, which was relied upon by the Madras High Court in C.R.P (NPD) No. 1053/2004 (Masilamani Naicker vs. Panchalai Ammal) which was disposed of vide Order dated 15.02.2008 condoning the delay however by imposing cost. The learned counsel submits that in the present case also, since there was some default on the part of the appointed counsel, the delay in filing the connected review petition may be condoned. [3.] Mr. T Thakuria, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Page No.# 4/4 Department submits that he has no objection if the delay is condoned. [4.] Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the applications and the authorities relied upon, this Court is inclined to allow the application. Accordingly, the delay of 363 days in filing the connected review petition stands condoned. [5.] I.A stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant