Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040015662024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/220/2024 The State of AP and 4 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2: The Chief Secretary Age: Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3: The Secretary (Personnel) Age: Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4: The Under Secretary (Personnel) Age: Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5: The Secretary Age: Occupation : Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Itanagar VERSUS Nima Tondrang Son of Late O Tondrang, presently serving as Joint Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Subu Tapin, GA (AP) Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : Marge Doji, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 13.05.2025 SK Medhi, J. Heard Shri S Tapin, learned Sr. Government Advocate, AP, who has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 346 days in filing the connected writ appeal. The connected appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C)/388(AP)/2023. In this IA, notice was issued on 19.11.2024 and in the meantime, Shri D Panging, learned counsel has entered appearance for the respondent. Shri Tapin, learned State Counsel by drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 has submitted that due to reasons which were not within the control of the applicant, the delay has occasioned. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the various communications exchanged between the appropriate authorities regarding preferring of the appeal. He accordingly prays for condoning the delay. Shri Panging, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the reasons cited are not convincing. However, in a similar matter, the delay has been condoned and therefore, he would not have serious objections to the condonation of delay in this appeal and it is submitted that he would, rather oppose the appeal on its merits. It is a settled position of law that while adjudicating a delay condonation petition, Page No.# 3/3 the approach of the Court is to be justice oriented and pragmatic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also laid down that no extra laxity is to be given only because the applicant is State which is to be treated at par. Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the delay of 346 days in preferring the connected appeal is liable to be condoned which we accordingly do. The IA accordingly stands allowed. Let the connected writ appeal be registered and list the same after a week. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant