Page No.# 1/13 GAHC030005312024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/134/2024 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors. R/b the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Aizawl, Mizoram 2: Secretary to the Government of Mizoram 3: The Engineer-in-Chief 4: The Executive Enginee VERSUS Sh. Jerry Zothankima and 2 Ors. H/o Zomuanpuii (L), R/o Kualmawi, Bilkhawthlir, Kolasib, Mizoram 2:Lalhmingmawii (Minor) 3:Eric Ramngaihzual Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Page No.# 2/13 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 22.02.2025 Heard Ms. Lalnunhluii, learned Government Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Johny L Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondents. By filing this application, the applicants seek condonation of 250 days delay in filing the connected Regular First Appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 122/2017. [2.] By referring to the application, the learned Government Advocate submits that the Judgment & Order dated 08.09.2022 was received by the concerned Department on 11.09.2023 and upon receipt of the same, the Department had taken steps to comply with the Judgment & Order. The Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity (P&ED) vide letter dated 07.12.2023 wrote to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED requesting that the appeal be preferred before the higher forum since there were good grounds of appeal. Thereafter, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED vide letter dated 14.12.2023 wrote to the Advocate General, Mizoram to take necessary action for preferring an appeal since there were good grounds for filing an appeal. The Engineer-in-Chief, P&ED vide letter dated 29.04.2024 sent certified copy of the Page No.# 3/13 deposition of witnesses of both the parties in the Civil Suit to the Under Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED while also stating that the delay in filing the appeal is due to late receipt of a copy of judgment & order and collection of the required information. The Under Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED then furnished the requisite documents including certified copy of the judgment & order to the learned Addl. Advocate General vide her letter dated 01.05.2024. In response, the learned Addl. Advocate General wrote back stating that the certified copy furnished was not in the correct format and the same should be re-submitted in the correct format. Following the same, the certified copy in the proper format was furnished to the learned Add. Advocate General by the Under Secretary, P&ED vide her letter dated 22.05.2024. Upon receiving the same, drafting for the proposed appeal was initiated by the learned Addl. Advocate General and the same was said to be finalized in the month of July, 2024. The ad volerem Court fees was furnished to him again on 29.07.2024 and it was thereafter that the appeal could be filed only on 13.08.2024. [3.] The learned Government Advocate submits that the delay in filing the connected appeal is due to the various correspondences that had to be made between the Department concerned and their appointed counsels. The same was not due to carelessness or culpable negligence but for reasons beyond the Page No.# 4/13 control of the applicants. She submits that there are good grounds for filing the connected appeal and if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. She also submits that since public money is involved, delay may be condoned least public interest suffers. She also submits that since the applicants are not private persons but the State Government and therefore, Court may have a liberal approach. She thus submits that the delay of 250 days in filing the connected appeal may be condoned for the ends of justice. In support of her submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities: (i) State of Manipur & Ors. vs. Koting Lamkang, (2019) 10 SCC 408. (ii) State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 752. (iii) Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531. [4.] Mr. Johny L Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondents, on the hand, submits that there has been gross negligence on the part of the applicants in not preferring the connected appeal within the time prescribed. He also submits that the delay of 250 days has also not been properly explained Page No.# 5/13 and for which reason, Court should not condone the delay. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the learned counsel submits that according to the applicants, a copy of the impugned judgment & orders was received by them on 11.09.2023 but however, the Engineer-in-Chief, P&ED wrote to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED requesting that necessary action be taken for filing an appeal since there were good grounds vide his letter dated 07.12.2023. He submits that there is no explanation as to what transpired between 11.08.2023 & 07.12.2023 which was for a period of 88 days. He further submits that there is also no explanation as to what transpired between 07.12.2023 & 14.12.2023 on which date a letter was written to the Advocate General by the Under Secretary, P&ED, which was for about 7 days. [5.] The learned counsel further submits that there is also no explanation as to what transpired between 14.12.2023 & 29.04.2024 on which date, the Engineer-in-Chief, P&ED had written letter to the Under Secretary of the same Department, which was for about 137 days. The learned counsel also submits that when the Addl. Government Advocate of the District Court had written to the Department that there were good grounds for filing an appeal while enclosing a copy of the judgment & order which was received by them on Page No.# 6/13 11.09.2023, the applicants did not bother to apply for a certified copy of the said judgment & order and it was only on 21.05.2024 that the same was applied and received by them. The same only shows that there has been gross negligence on the part of the applicants in not taking proper steps at the appropriate time. He also submits that from the explanation given by the applicants, the entire month of July, 2024 was spent for obtaining ad volerem Court fees amounting to Rs. 11,000/-, which is unbelievable. He thus submits that for the negligence of the part of the applicants, the delay in filing the connected appeal should not be condoned and the application should be dismissed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Amalendu Kumar Bera & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52 and (ii) Order dated 21.01.2019 passed by this Court in I.A(C) No. 93/2018 arising out of MAC. App. No. 19/2018 (Chalamandalam M/s Central Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Ngaihawihahing & Anr.). [6.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. Page No.# 7/13 [7.] As already stated herein above, the applicants have sought condonation of 250 days delay in filing the connected Regular First Appeal. The impugned judgment & order was passed by the learned Trial Court on 08.09.2023 and a copy of the same was furnished to the Department concerned, which they received on 11.09.2023. The Department’s counsel who forwarded the judgment & order opined that there were good grounds for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment & order and the letter was addressed to the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED and a copy given to the Engineer-in- Chief, P&ED and the Executive Engineer, P&ED. Although the letter was said to have been received on 11.09.2023 itself, the Engineer-in-Chief, P&ED wrote to the Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED only on 07.12.2023 requesting the latter that necessary action be taken for filing an appeal. There is no explanation as to what transpired between 11.09.2023 & 07.12.2023 which was about 88 days as rightly pointed out by the respondents. On receiving the letter dated 07.12.2023, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED wrote to the Advocate General for taking necessary steps in filing an appeal against the impugned judgment & order of the Trial Court vide letter dated 14.02.2023. The next communication annexed in the application is a letter dated 29.04.2024 written by the Engineer-in-Chief, P&ED to the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, P&ED submitting certified copies of the Page No.# 8/13 deposition of witnesses of both the parties before the Trial Court in the Civil Suit. There is no explanation as to what transpired between 14.04.2023 to 29.04.2023 which is again for 137 days as calculated by the respondents and stated in their affidavit-in-opposition. [8.] It is further seen that the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED vide her letter dated 01.05.2024 had furnished the Addl. Advocate General, the required documents for preparing and drafting of the appeal which was acknowledged on 13.04.2024 with a request for a certified copy of the judgment & order in the correct format for further necessary action. The same was subsequently furnished to him vide letter dated 22.05.2025 and received by the Office of the Advocate General on 31.05.2024. Although the appeal is said to be ready in the month of July, 2024 but there are neither a specific date nor pleadings explaining the number of days taken for drafting and finalization of the appeal. According to the applicants, the ad volerem Court fees of Rs. 11,000/- was made available to their counsels on 29.07.2024 whereafter the appeal could be filed on 13.08.2024. [9.] From the statements made in the application for condoning of delay, the applicants have sought to project that the delay of 250 days is due to reasons beyond their control and due to certain procedure formalities. It is, however, Page No.# 9/13 noticed that although a copy of the judgment & order passed by the Trial Court was received by them on 11.09.2023 but prompt steps was not taken to process the matter and it was only on 07.12.2023 that a request was made by the Engineer-in-Chief, P&ED to the Administrative Department for taking necessary action to prefer an appeal in the appellate forum. A period of about 88 days before any action was taken remains unexplained. It is further noticed that although the Advocate General was requested to file an appeal vide letter dated 14.12.2023 but what transpired before letter dated 29.04.2024 was made by the Engineer-in-Chief, P&ED to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, P&ED while furnishing certified copy of deposition of witnesses of the rival parties in the Trial Court has not been explained. The gap between the two communications appears to be for about 137 days. It is further seen that when the Department had requested the Advocate General to file an appeal vide Communication dated 14.12.2023 and thereafter, the relevant documents furnished vide letter dated 01.05.2024, the appeal was simply said to be ready and finalized in the month of July, 2024 without mentioning any particular date. Therefore, having regard to the explanations made in the application, the question that arises is as to whether the explanations are with sufficient cause to compel or convince this Court to condone the delay in filing the connected appeal. Page No.# 10/13 [10.] The Apex Court in the case of State of Manipur & Ors. vs. Koting Lamkang (supra) in the given facts of that case was of the view that regard should be had about the slow pace at which the Government moves in reaching a decision unlike in the case of a private individual. That it must be taken into consideration that the Government’s functioning is impersonal in nature where individual Officers may fail to act responsibly which in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. Therefore, if the appeal filed by State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected. The Apex Court in that context took note of the fact that the decree that was passed against the State was for vacating a certain plot of land which otherwise was projected to be an area of strategic importance. It was under such circumstance that the delay was condoned by imposition of cost to the appellant State. In the present case, it may be seen that the challenge sought to be made by the applicants is to the award made by the learned Trial Court awarding certain amount of a compensation to the respondents for the death of the wife of the respondent No. 1 and mother of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 due to electrocution. [11.] The Apex Court in Post Master General & Ors vs. Living Media India Ltd & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563 in the given facts of that case opined that though the Page No.# 11/13 Court was conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, the Department however cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation according to the Apex Court would bind everybody including the Government. Therefore, the delay of 427 days in approaching the Court was refused to be condoned. [12.] Coming to the present case as already noticed, there is no explanation as to what had transpired between 11.09.2023 to 07.12.2023, 14.12.2023 to 29.04.2024. It is a settled law that the length of delay ordinarily should not matter if there are proper explanations with sufficient cause tendered by the applicant/applicants concerned. Tendering of day to day explanation may not be insisted but then there has to be some explanation, in fact reasonable explanations with supporting materials to show that the matter had been pursued diligently and with bona fide intent. There is however no explanation in the instant case importantly for the aforesaid periods besides the other shorter periods. Page No.# 12/13 [12.] The case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao & Ors. (supra) is relied upon by the learned Government Advocate but it may be noticed that the delay in that case was for 57 days and the explanation of the State appellant that the file had moved from table to table and was misplaced at some stage was accepted by the Apex Court. However, in the instant case there is no explanation for a certain period of time. It is true that “Sufficient cause” as it is should be considered with pragmatism and in a justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining everyday’s delay as opined in the Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India (supra) but then such discretion can be exercised when an explanation for the delay is tendered whatever it may be for the consideration of the Court. Unfortunately, here is a case where no explanation is given for the period between 11.09.2023 to 07.12.2023 and 14.12.2023 to 29.04.2024 amongst others. [13.] The Apex Court in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 held that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of the case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted diligently or remained inactive. The facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise Page No.# 13/13 discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The party, therefore, must satisfy the Court that he or she was prevented by any sufficient cause from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. [14.] Thus, upon hearing the parties and after due consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the applicants have failed to explain the delay with sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 250 days for preferring the connected appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and dismissed. [15.] Having come to such conclusion, reference to the remaining authorities cited by the parties is found to be not necessary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant