Page No.# 1/13 GAHC030007472024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/197/2024 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors. Aizawl2: Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Home Department 3: Director General of Police Mizoram 4: Commandant 2nd Bn I.R. Khawzaw VERSUS Thanghmingliani and 3 Ors. Bungkawn Nursery, Aizawl, Mizoram 2:Lalhminghluii 3:Lallawmsanga 4:Vanlalhumi r/b Thanghminglian Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng for R1-R4 Linked Case : RFA/46/2024 Page No.# 2/13 State of Mizoram and 3 Ors. Aizawl 2: Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Home Department Aizawl 3: Director General of Police Mizoram Aizawl 4: Commandant 2nd Bn I.R. Khawzawl Aizawl Aizawl VERSUS Thanghmingliani and 3 Ors. Bungkawn Nursery Veng 2:Lalhminghlui Bungkawn Nursery Aizawl Mizoram 3:Lallawmsanga Bungkawn Nursery Aizawl Mizoram 4:Vanlalhumi r/b Thanghmingliani Bungkawn Nursery Aizawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng for R1-R4 Page No.# 3/13 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 25.11.2025 Heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Govt. Advocate for the State appellant. Also heard Mr. Johny L.Tochhawng learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the condonation of 353 days delay in filing the connected Regular First Appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 18.11.2023 passed by the Court of Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Aizawl in W.C case No. 13/2018. 3. Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Govt. Advocate submits that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 18.10.2023 by the applicants, was not due to any negligence on the part of the applicants but was due to the moving of the files as per the usual office procedure and also due to other circumstances beyond their control which has been highlighted in detail at para 1 (i – xii) in the condonation application. 4. The learned Govt. Advocate explained that, the copy of the Judgment & Award dated 18.10.2023 in W.C. Case No. 13/2018 was received by the concerned Department on 13.10.2023 from the Govt. Advocate and as per the advice from the Govt. Advocate, the Govt. took the decision on 09.11.2023 to Page No.# 4/13 prefer an appeal against the said Judgment & Award. Accordingly, on the same date, the Govt. Advocate was asked to take necessary steps. The Addl. Advocate General then endorsed matter to the present Govt. Advocate on 16.11.2023. The Govt. Advocate vide letters dated 16.11.2023 & 20.11.2023 requested the Home Department to furnished the necessary documents for filing an appeal. The Director General of Police, was in turn, requested by the concerned department to furnished the required documents and to take steps as per Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act vide letter dated 24.11.2023. Accordingly, the required documents were furnished to the Govt. Advocate on 08.12.2023. However, for taking steps under Section 30 of the Employee Compensation Act, the permission and the approval of the Finance Department for release of the fund amounting to Rs. 20,94,562/- (Rupees Twenty lakh nine four thousand five hundred sixty two) only, was required, which could be obtained only on 13.02.2024 since the file was required to be cleared by the Finance Department (EC). The approval of the Finance Department was then forwarded to DGP on 15.02.2024. The Govt. Advocate vide letter dated 14.03.2024 again requested the concern departments to furnished additional required documents and also to furnished the requisite court fees vide letter dated 18.10.2023. The Director General of Police then again took necessary steps by requesting the Under Secretary, Home Page No.# 5/13 Department on 20.03.2024. The certified true copy of the certificate/receipt of the compensation amount deposited to the employees’ compensation was received by the Govt. Advocate on 03.04.2024. Thereafter, the learned counsel prepares the appeal memo after compilation of the necessary documents. The requisite court fees was furnished to the Govt. Advocate on 12.08.2024 since a certain procedure had to be followed by the applicants for sanctioning the court fees of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only. Thereafter, before the learned Govt. Advocate could file the appeal, she was required to take maternity leave from 01.07.2024 till 30.09.2024 due to some complication in her pregnancy. The learned Govt. Advocate could resume office and actively take up the case from 14.10.2024 and filed the appeal on 05.12.2025 as soon as possible when she resumes her office. 5. The learned Govt. Advocate thus submitted that the delay was not due to any negligence on the part of the applicants and that the steps taken for filing up the appeal and the explanation for the delay are all supported with the required documents which had been enclosed in the Interlocutory Application. The learned Govt. Advocate thus submitted that since the delay has been explained properly, this court may condoned the delay of 353 days. The learned Govt. Advocate has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India reported in (2025)1 SCC 625 Page No.# 6/13 para 20, wherein it had held that it is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. The learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 para 14, wherein it was observed that:- ‘Government decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible.’ 6. Per contra, Mr. Johnny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the opposite party / respondent submitted that there are no grounds to condoned the delay of 353 days in filing the appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 18.10.2023. He submitted that even though the Judgment was dated 18.10.2023 there is no explanation as to why the copy was received by the applicant only on 30.10.2023 (i.e., after 13 days). He submitted that after the Judgment and Award was received on 30.10.2023 the decision to prefer an appeal was taken only on 09.11.2023, and the delay of 11 days in coming to such a decision was not explained. The learned counsel further submitted that the delay between 09.11.2023 to 16.11.2023, (when the Govt. Advocate asked for documents) has not been explained nor is there any attempt to do so. Page No.# 7/13 7. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that the communication of the Govt. Advocate vide its various letters were received only on 05.12.2023. He further submitted that the delay between 06.11.2023 to 08.12.2023 (when the documents were submitted to the Govt. Advocate) remains unexplained and further the appellants had enough time to acquire the necessary documents to file a timely appeal. He submitted that the applicant also failed to account for the delay of 38 days counting from 08.12.2023 to 15.01.2023, which is for getting the approval for payment of compensation from the Finance Department. There is no explanation of 15 days between 15.09.2024 to 30.09.2024 and there is no explanation for further delay on 30.01.2024 to 15.02.2024. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the delay between 15.02.2024 to 14.03.2024 wherein, after the department forwarded the approval letter a period of 28 days was taken by the Govt. Advocate to sent a letter for acquiring the necessary documents. He submitted that even though the Govt. Department had decided to prefer an appeal on 09.11.2023 however, the Govt. Advocate on 14.03.2024, had requested for the required documents and there is no proper explanation for the delay in asking for the said documents. He submitted that the days between 20.03.2024 which is the date when the Under Secretary, Home Department, forwarded the letter to the DGP and 03.04.2024, remain Page No.# 8/13 unexplained. 9. The learned counsel also submitted on 03.04.2024, after receiving the necessary documents, the Govt. Advocate should have taken immediate necessary steps instead took 88 days to file the appeal on 30.06.2024. He submitted that since the applicant had already decided to file an appeal as early as on 09.11.2023, there is gross negligence on the part of the applicants and the failure to explain the various gaps in the dates show that they were not pursuing the matter diligently. The learned counsel further submitted that the plea that the Govt. Advocate had taken maternity leave from 01.07.2024 to 30.09.2024, is not reasonable excuse since other Govt. Advocates are available who can take up the case. 10. The learned counsel thus, submitted that the applicant failed to show sufficient caused for the delay and even though day to day explanation may not be necessary however, the applicant has failed to explain even a month to month explanation in the delay of 353 days in filing the connected appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent has therefore, prayed that the instant condonation application be dismissed outright. 11. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Amalendu Kumar Bera Vs. State of W.B. Page No.# 9/13 reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52 para 9, wherein it was held that the Court should not take a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay if the State’s action in preferring an appeal is marred by serious laches and negligence. And the Judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in I.A.(Civil) No. 170 / 2024, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Malsawmtluangi, wherein, this Court had not condoned a delay of 616 days in filing the appeal by observing that the applicant’s had negligence and casual in filing the appeal and that no prompt action was taken by the concerned insurance company even though the legal opinion for filing an appeal was received at an early date by the branch manager of the concerned company. He has also relied on the Judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in State of Mizoram and 3 ors Vs. Jerry Zothankima and 2 ors. in I.A.(Civil) No. 134 of 2024 dated 22.02.2025 wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Court did not condoned the delay of 250 days in filing the connected appeal by observing that no explanation was given by the application between 11.09.2023 to 07.12.2023 and 14.12.2023 to 29.04.2024 amongst other. 12. This court has considered the submissions made by both the parties and has also perused the documents on record. Page No.# 10/13 13. It is an accepted principle, as held in Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India, that a day to day explanation is not required in explaining the delay for filing condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. It is also seen that the Apex Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (Supra) held that The expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected, but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts, omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. It was, therefore, held that in assessing what constitutes sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Government decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making. A Page No.# 11/13 certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have “a little play at the joints”. Due recognition of these limitations on governmental functioning — of course, within reasonable limits — is necessary if the judicial approach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision-making process. The delay of over one year was accordingly condoned. 14. Thus, it is seen that in the instant case the condonation of delay application is made by the Government department (Home Department). This court on perusal of the explanation given by the applicant department, finds that the applicant had promptly taken the decision to prefer an appeal on 09.11.2023, against the Judgment & Award dated 13.10.2023 and accordingly, had asked the Govt. Advocate to take the necessary steps. Once the Addl. Advocate General endorsed the matter to the Govt. Advocate on 16.11.2023, the Govt. Advocate had requested the Home Department to furnished the necessary documents vide letters dated 16.11.2023 and 20.11.2023. Thereafter, it is seen that the concerned department had promptly taken the necessary steps on 24.11.2023 by requesting the Director General of Police to furnished the required documents and also take steps as per Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act. The said steps were taken well within the limitation period. 15. Thereafter, this court has also perused the various documents enclosed in the condonation application to support the submissions made in explaining the Page No.# 12/13 reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The perusal of the documents dated 16.11.2023, 20.11.2023, 24.11.2023, 08.12.2023, 15.01.2024, 15.02.2024, 14.03.2024 shows that the applicant had followed the usual required office procedure for obtaining the necessary documents and for getting the approval of the Finance Department for getting the sanction of Rs. 20,94,562/- (Rupees Twenty lakh nine four thousand five hundred sixty two) only, which could be obtained only on 15.02.2024. It is also seen from the various communication that further time was also required to get the sanction approval for the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which is the requisite court’s fees. A perusal of the enclosed documents shows that the delay was caused mainly due to the usual office procedure required for getting the necessary approval and financial sanction. 16. This court also finds that the another cause for the delay was because the Govt. Advocate, to whom the case was endorsed, had taken leave from 01.07.2024 to 30.09.2024 due to complications during her pregnancy. Thereafter, she was able to file the Regular First Appeal only on 05.12.2024. This court’s thus finds that, the delay between 01.07.2024 till the filing of the Regular first Appeal were circumstances beyond the control of the applicant department. 17. Thus, in considering the explanation given in its entity, which are also supported by the document enclosed, this court finds that the concern applicant department had perused the matter diligently with a bonafide intent of filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. This court also finds that the short periods/gaps mentioned by the learned counsel for the opposite party, for which no detailed explanation was given, appear to be the time required for movements of files as per the usual procedure in Govt. Page No.# 13/13 Departments. 18. Accordingly, for the above reasons, this court finds that the delay of 353 days in filing the connected Regular First Appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 18.11.2023 passed by the court of Commissioner, Employees Compensation in W.C case No. 13/2018 was not due to laches or negligence on the part of the applicants and thus this court being satisfied with the explanation given by the learned counsel for the applicant find it appropriate to condone the delay of 353 days in filing the connected appeal. 19. In view of the above, I.A. No. 179/2024 stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant