Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040005222025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/175/2025 M/s Sahabuddin Siddique and Anr Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by its proprietor Shri Sahabuddin Siddique having its office at Kamalabari Da-Hukuta PO and PS Duliajan Dibrugarh District Assam 786602 2: Sahabuddin Siddique Age: 46 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Fazur Rahman Siddique resident of Kamalabari Da-Hukuta PO and PS Duliajan Dibrugarh District Assam 786602 VERSUS The Union of India and 4 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Secretary Govt of India Ministry of Defence 101A South Block New Delhi. 2:The Border Road Organization Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by Director General Page No.# 2/4 Ministry of Defence Seema Sadak Bahawan Ring Road Naraina Delhi Cant New Delhi 110010 3:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:BRO cum Authority Engineer BRO Project Brahamank C/o APO Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh 931722 4:The Commander Age: 0 Occupation : Address:BRO cum Team Leader Cum Senior Highway Engineer HQ 44 Border Roads Tsk Force 930044 C/o 99 APO 5:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Tato Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Kemo Lollen Advocate for : Marto Kato appearing for The Union of India and 4 Ors: Advocate , , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5, respectively. Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 03.09 .2025 (S. SAIKIA, J) Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an interlocutory application filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 88 days which is occurred in filing the accompanying writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 186/2024. Notice in the interlocutory application was issued on 03.07.2025. Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appears for the Union and Ms. P. Pangu, learned Government Advocate appears for the State. The learned counsel representing the opposite parties do not object to the prayer made. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the grounds urged in support of the prayer for condonation of the delay and in absence of any specific objections from the respondents to the contrary and also considering the law laid down by the Apex Page No.# 4/4 Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, this Court considers it appropriate to condone the delay, as prayed for. Accordingly, the delay of 88 days which had occurred in filing the connected appeal is condoned. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant