Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010247022025 2026:GAU- AS:10055-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/4103/2025 THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110001 2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CENTRAL GOVERMENT OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI 110001 3: THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTH EASTERN SECTOR CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN 793001 4: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RANGE HQR CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CHANDAULI VARANASI PIN 221011 5: THE COMMANDANT CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE POLO GROUND SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN 793001 6: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP CENTRE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE Page No.# 2/6 GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 78102 VERSUS CT/FITTER MUFIZ UDDIN FORCE NO 135096897, S/O HAZI JIA UDDIN, R/O MUNSIGRAM, P/O DALOOGRAM, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K MEDHI, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D GOGOI, MS T WAPANGLA BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 22.07.2026 (A.D. Choudhury, J) 1. We have heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned CGC for the applicants/Union of India. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant/Union of India seeking condonation of the delay of 221 days in preferring the connected appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 4350/2020. 3. The grounds of delay are explained in paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the instant application. Page No.# 3/6 4. Canvassing for the applicant(s), Mr. Medhi learned CGC, contends that it is evident from the aforesaid paragraphs that the delay in filing the connected appeal was a result of a necessary and unavoidable official procedure. 5. It is further contended by Mr. Medhi, learned CGC, that there was no deliberate and/or intentional lapse on the part of the officers; rather, the Central Government was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 6. Mr. Medhi, learned CGC, also contends that a liberal approach may be adopted while condoning the delay, and this Court may not take too strict and pedantic a stand, which may result in injustice. 7. In support of his contentions, Mr. Medhi, learned CGC for the applicant(s), places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr –Vs- Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in [(1987) 2 SCC 107]. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents relying on the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Chief Post Master General & Ors –Vs- Living Media India Ltd and Anr., reported in [AIR 2012 SC 1506] contends that there is gross negligence on the part of the Central authorities in approaching this Court within time and the causes shown at the aforesaid paragraphs cannot be termed as “sufficient cause” and therefore, such delay may not be condoned, inasmuch as, by now it is well settled that bureaucratic delay cannot be Page No.# 4/6 termed as “sufficient cause.” 9. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is true that a certain amount of latitude, given impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology, is not impermissible; however, sufficient cause should be weighed pragmatically within a justice-oriented approach. 11. It is by now well settled that Government may not be treated as any other private litigant, so far as it relates to condonation of delay, for the reason that the Government’s decision to present and prosecute an appeal is not an individual but an institutional decision, which necessarily goes by the proverb “red-tape”; however, there are limits to the same. 12. In the case at hand, the approach of the Central Government and its officers, in our considered opinion, amounts to a stereotypical explanation. The explanations given in the aforesaid paragraphs do not disclose any unavoidable circumstances or genuine difficulties; the person(s) of the concerned Department have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter. 13. The applicant(s) admittedly came to know about the Judgment & Order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4350/2020, immediately. However, the applicant(s) remained completely inactive and negligent in pursuing the matter within the prescribed period of limitation. Except for the disclosure of certain dates when files were placed before different hierarchical authorities for approval, no justification Page No.# 5/6 has been disclosed. Such movement of files/communications started from 24.02.2025 and reached the decision to file an appeal in the office of the Central Government Counsel subsequent to 19.06.2025, and the appeal was filed on 03.11.2025. 14. The explanation given by the applicant(s) is that after providing legal opinion by the Central Government Counsel on 12.03.2025, the concerned department had accorded approval to file an appeal against the said judgment and thereafter, the connected appeal was filed on 03.11.2025. 15. In our opinion, such conduct is nothing but administrative lethargy and laxity, which can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, especially when the State/Central machinery is involved, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivamma (DEAD) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1969. 16. In our opinion, the Constitutional Court, in the given facts of the present case, should not bypass the procedure for Central Government Agencies that are lackadaisical in their approach. 17. In the backdrop of the explanation given, the argument on behalf of the Central Government that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and for genuine difficulties does not find favour with this Court. 18. The facts detailed in the aforesaid paragraphs of this application amount to a lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter and constitute a lackadaisical approach. We also note that the officers in the Department are well aware of and/or conversant with Page No.# 6/6 the issues involved, including the prescribed period for filing a writ appeal. 19. The Central Government cannot be allowed to take advantage of the leeway granted to the Government while condoning delay, only for the reason of bureaucratic delays, more particularly, in a case like the present one, where a plausible and acceptable explanation is absent, inasmuch as delay cannot be condoned mechanically, merely because the Government or a wing of government is a party before us. 20. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant