Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010172552025 2025:GAU- AS:17026-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2966/2025 SADHANA BARUAH SADHANA BARUAH, W/O NILANJAL GOGOI, R/O FLAT NO. 2H, CENTURY APARTMENT, GANESHGURI, G.S. ROAD, NEAR KAR BHAVAN, P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 781006 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE DIST. TRANSPORT OFFICER RANDL KAMRUP ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781007 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 78100 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B CHOWDHURY, IMSENKALA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 10-12-2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury,J) 1. Heard Ms. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. M. D. Borah, learned Standing counsel, Transport Department, Assam for the opposite parties/respondents. 2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of the delay of 455 days in preferring an appeal against the common order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3845/2017 & WP(C) No. 2101/2016. 3. The aforenoted writ petitions were filed by the applicant/petitioner therein. The cases of the applicant before the learned Single Judge were that she was appointed on 08.10.2002 as an LDA-cum-Typist in the District Transport Office, Kamrup on temporary basis. The applicant claimed to have continued in the service and initially, she approached this Court by way of filing WP(C) No. 2101/2016 seeking regularization of her service. During the pendency of the said writ petition, her monthly salaries were stopped, for which, she filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 3845/2017. However, both the writ petitions were dismissed holding that she is not entitled to any relief. Page No.# 3/4 4. Being aggrieved with such order, the connected appeal is preferred, however, it is 455 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 5. The primary ground for seeking condonation of delay in preferring the Writ Appeal is that the applicant’s son is a special child suffering from 50% disability and has been diagnosed of Autism. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the applicant has also annexed certain medical documents. 6. The length of the delay is indeed a relevant factor to be considered when deciding an application for condonation of delay. However, when sufficient causes are shown, the discretion vested in the Courts to condone delay is to be exercised, though sufficient cause shall not mean a mere explanation given superficially. 7. Perusal of the medical record goes to show that the child of the applicant was found to have mild mental retardation, autism spectrum disorder and 50% disability. 8. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicant has sufficiently explained the reasons of delay and has been able to substantiate that due to the health condition of her child, she was prevented from approaching the Court promptly and within the prescribed period of limitation. We do not see any negligence, lack of bona-fide or inaction on the part of the applicant. 9. Based on the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the applicant was not diligent or that the delay was intentional. 10. Thus, having considered the explanation tendered by the applicant, this Court is satisfied that the delay occasioned in preferring the connected Writ Appeal was neither deliberate nor actuated by negligence but resulted from bona-fide circumstances beyond the control of the applicant/appellant. In the absence of gross latches or mala-fide intention attributable to the Page No.# 4/4 applicant, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits. 11. In the given facts of the present case, the explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondents by such delay. 12. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and having satisfied that the causes shown are sufficient to condone the delay of 455 days, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Ordered accordingly. 13. Registry to register the connected Writ Appeal and list the same on 16.02.2026, if there is no defect in filing the same. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant