Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030002562025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/68/2025 C.Lallianzama S/o C.Lalchhanhima, R/o Zotlang, Lunglei, Mizoram VERSUS State of Mizoram and 4 Ors. R/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl 2:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Home Department Mizoram Aizawl 3:The Director General of Police Mizoram Aizawl 4:The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Armed) Aizawl Mizoram 5:The Commandant 3rd IR Mizo Battalion Mangaldai Assam-78412 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram Linked Case : WA/7/2025 Page No.# 2/6 C.Lallianzama S/o C.Lalchhanhima R/o Zotlang Lunglei Mizoram VERSUS State of Mizoram and 4 Ors. R/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 2:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Home Department Mizoram Aizawl 3:The Director General of Police Mizoram Aizawl 4:The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Armed) Aizawl Mizoram 5:The Commandant 3rd IR Mizo Battalion Mangaldai Assam-784125 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 16.06.2025 (Mridul Kumar kalita, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent. 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant praying for condoning the delay of 482 days in filing of the connected Writ Appeal (Writ Appeal No.7/2025), whereby the applicant has impugned the judgment and order dated 07.12.2023, passed by the learned Single Bench in WP (C) No.89/2020. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the delay of 482 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal has been caused due to the circumstances, which were beyond the control of the applicant. 4. He submits that he was mainly prevented from approaching this Court within the prescribed period of limitation due to his health conditions as he was suffering from Hepatitis-C and was under medical treatment for the said ailment. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that as soon as he was able to cope up with his health conditions, he took steps for preferring the connected Writ Appeal, however, in the meanwhile, the delay as stated herein before had already accrued. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the grounds shown by the applicant in his application for condoning the delay are good and sufficient for condoning the delay of 482 days under the circumstances of the Page No.# 4/6 present case, and therefore, he prays for condoning the said delay. 6. On the other hand, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has not been able to show sufficient and good ground for condoning the delay for such a long period of 482 days. She submits that merely for the reason that the petitioner was suffering from Hepatitis-C, such a long delay may not be condoned, as there is no averment in the application that he was either in comma or in such a condition, for which he was unable to come to Aizawl to file the connected Writ Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 7. She also submits that the plea that the Court was closed in vacation, therefore, the applicant could not prefer the Writ Appeal within the period of limitation is also not acceptable in as much as even during the Court vacations on specific days the Registry of the Court remains open so as to facilitate filing by the litigants. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on the record. 9. Although the period of 482 days is a long period, however, there is no dispute to the settled legal proposition that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice oriented approach has to be taken. 10. The applicant is an inhabitant of Lunglei, which is situated far away from Aizawl where the High Court is located. It appears from the averment made in the application for condonation of delay that the petitioner was suffering from Hepatitis-C and was not in a position to undertake a long journey from Lunglei to Aizawl for pursuing the legal remedy. 11. Chapter VA, Rule 2 (2) of the Gauhati High Court Rules provides that the Page No.# 5/6 Division Bench may condone the delay in filing any appeal in if good and sufficient cause shown. 12. We are of the considered opinion that the ailment with which the applicant was suffering may cause genuine difficulties and the circumstance which were beyond his control in pursuing the legal remedies against the impugned judgment. 13. We are also of the considered opinion that there is no lack of bona fide in preferring the connected Writ Appeal beyond the period of limitation, as it would be the applicant himself who would be at the receiving end if the appeal is not admitted due to delay. 14. We are of the considered opinion that the reasons stated by the applicant in paragraph No.2 (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) of the application for condoning the delay discloses good and sufficient cause for which the petitioner could not approach this Court within the prescribed period of limitation. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the delay of 482 days of preferring the connected Writ Appeal is condoned. 16. This interlocutory application is accordingly allowed. 17. List the connected Writ Appeal after two weeks on a date to be fixed by Registry. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Page No.# 6/6