Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010116212025 2026:GAU- AS:10054-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2135/2025 THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONS), N.F. RAILWAY AND 3 ORS. MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-781011 2: THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CONSTRUCTION-ITI N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781011 3: THE CHIEF ENGINEER/CONSTRUCTION-VII N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011 4: THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER/C-1 N.E. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-78101 VERSUS HCC CPL (JV) AND ANR. A JOINT CENTURE GROUP HAVING ITS PROJECT OFFICE SITUATED AT MADAN MOHAN APARTMENT, NEAR SHANI MANDIR, JAIL ROAD (SHILLONG PATTY), SILCHAR-01, ASSAM, REP. BY THE REGIONAL HEAD (NE) SRI SHAIK MOULALI, S/O. JOHN SAHED R/O. BLOCK NO. 3, FLAT NO. 302, NEW MALHAR SAHARA ESTATES, MANSOORABAD, LB NAGAR, RANGAREDDI, TELANGANA-500068. 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER GST KADER RAOD Page No.# 2/6 MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G GOSWAMI, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST, MR. D MAZUMDAR(R1),MR A BHATRA(R1),MR. B D DEKA(R1),MR. D MAZUMDAR(R1) 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. G Goswami, learned CGC for the applicants/Union of India. Also heard Mr. A. Bhatra, learned Advocate and Mr. K Jain, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2. 2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant/Union of India seeking condonation of the delay of 670 days in preferring the connected appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 2683/2021. 3. The grounds of delay are explained in paragraph No. 4 of the instant application. 4. Canvassing for the applicant(s), Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicants, contends that it is evident from Page No.# 3/6 paragraph-4 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. Goswami, learned counsel, 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. Goswami, learned counsel, 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. Goswami, learned counsel 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 paragraph No. 4 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 termed as “sufficient cause.” 9. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions Page No.# 4/6 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 paragraph No. 4 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 26.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2683/2021 immediately. Their explanation of the delay is that on 26.07.2023, instructions were sought from the Railway Board for future course of action, to which the Railway Board, under its communication dated 04.01.2024, opined that until the judgment is against the contract agreement/railway policy, the decision of the court may be followed. This took more than five months. Page No.# 5/6 14. Having faced with such an opinion, NF Railway issued another communication after eight months, on 12.09.2024, to the Railway Board seeking more clarification. Only more than a month thereafter, on 22.10.2024, the Law Officer of the NF Railway requested their counsel to file the connected appeal. 15. As in the connected contempt proceeding initiated, the NF Railways, by filing an affidavit on 06.11.2024, took a stand that the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 had already been complied with; the counsel for Railways sought further clarification. Thereafter, according to the Railways, time was spent in the vetting process from 27.03.2025 till 20.05.2025, and thereafter the appeal was filed on 28.05.2025. 16. The law is well settled that while the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. However, such liberty cannot be extended to condone inordinate and unexplained delay founded on causal or routine assertion as in the present case. In our opinion, the explanation offered and as recorded hereinabove, is wholly inadequate for the delay of 670 days and does not inspire our confidence. 17. 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 1969. Page No.# 6/6 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The facts detailed in paragraph No. 4 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 the issues involved, including the prescribed period for filing a writ appeal. 21. 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. 22. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant