Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040011792024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/159/2024 Tage Yapi Son of Tayin Yapi R/o village Gasheng, PO/PS Payum/Kaying, District Siang, AP VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Others represented by the Commissioner and Secretary of Public Health Engineering Department , AP 2:The Chief Executive Engineer Office of the State Jal Jevan Mission Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 3:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Office of the Public Health Engineering and Water Resource Division Pangin Arunachal Pradesh 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Boleng District Siang Arunachal Pradesh 5:Kaling Taboh Page No.# 2/4 Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Talem Taboh R/o village Molom PO/PS Rumgong District Siang Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : O Tayeng, O Tayeng Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 27.11.2025 There is no representation on behalf of the applicant today on call. 2. Ms. T. Wangmo, learned State Counsel appears for opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. 3. The instant interlocutory application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 18 days, which period of delay is stated to have occurred in filing the accompanying interlocutory application, MC [WP (C)] 2 (AP) 2024. The accompanying interlocutory application, M.C. [WP (C)] 2 (AP) 2024 is preferred seeking restoration of a writ petition, WP (C) 505 (AP) 2023, which was dismissed for default on 18.07.2024 for non-appearance of the writ petitioner therein, who is the applicant in these two interlocutory applications. 4. Ms. Wangmo, learned State Counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that the writ petition was preferred by the writ Page No.# 3/4 petitioner i.e. the applicant herein alleging improper commission of a project under Jal Jeevan Mission in the Village-Gasheng where the writ petitioner- applicant is the Gaon Burah. It is submitted that the party-respondent No. 5 in the writ petition was the successful bidder to carry out the contract work for augmentation of Water Supply at Gasheng Village and he was issued with an Work Order at a contract value of Rs.55,66,000/-. Alleging gross irregularities in the completion of the contract-work, the writ petitioner seeking an enquiry had preferred the writ petition. 5. When the writ petitioner was found absent on two consecutive occasions on 30.04.2024 and 18.07.2024, the Court finding such non-representation, dismissed the writ petition on 18.07.2024 for non-prosecution. 6. The writ petitioner as the applicant has preferred two interlocutory applications i.e. I.A. (C)159 (AP) 2024 and M.C. [WP (C)] 2 (AP) 2024. The filing of the said applications with 18 days of delay itself is suggestive of an act of lack of earnestness on the part of the applicant. 7. In I.A. (C)159 (AP) 2024, notice was issued to the respondents on 09.09.2024. The applicant was directed to take steps for service of notice upon the opposite party no. 5, who was impleaded as the party-respondent No. 5 in WP (C) 505 (AP) 2023, as the other opposite parties i.e. opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are represented by the learned State Counsel. Steps were taken by the applicant for service of notice upon opposite party No. 2. When neither AD Card nor the un-served notice had returned back from the opposite party No. 5 after service till 25.02.2025, the applicant sought permission to take steps for service of notice upon opposite party No. 5 by way of dasti, which was to be routed through the Registry. The applicant was also directed to file a compliance Page No.# 4/4 affidavit to that effect by the Order dated 27.02.2025. 8. The application being I.A. (C) 159 (AP) 2024 along with MC[WP (C)] 2 (AP) 2024 was listed on 19.06.2025. As the applicant did not take any steps for service of notice upon the opposite party No. 5 by way of dasti in deference to the order dated 27.02.2025 till then, the applicant was granted, as per his prayer, further four weeks’ time to take steps for service of notice upon opposite party No. 5. 9. The office note dated 26.11.2025 has reported that steps for service of notice upon opposite party No. 5 has not been taken by the applicant till date, meaning thereby, after the Order dated 19.06.2025, the applicant has not taken the requisite steps for more than five months till date. When the case has been called up today, there is no representation to represent the applicant. 10. From the above facts, it is demonstrative of a situation that the applicant is not serious in pursuing the applications for restoration of the writ petition, W.P. (C) 505 (AP) 2023 as he has neither taken steps for service of notice upon opposite party No. 5 for more than five months nor he has appeared when the application is listed. 11. In the above view of the matter, the Court is constrained to dismiss this interlocutory application, I.A. (C) 159 (AP) 2024 for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant