Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010282972025 2026:GAU- AS:10056-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/5/2026 THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI, P.O. AND P.S. DHUBRIDIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS MD HAFIZUR RAHMAN AND 2 ORS SON OF LATE HASEN ALI, R/O VILL- JHAGRAPARPART-III, P.O. JHAGRARPAR, P.S. DHUBRI, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DHUBRI CIRCLE OFFICER P.O. AND P.S. DHUBRI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K SARMAH, Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/5 For the applicant :- Ms. U.Sharma, Govt. Advocate, BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 22-07-2026 (Arun Dev Choudhury,J) 1. Heard Ms. U. Sharma, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the applicant. None appears for the respondents/opposite parties. 2. The present Interlocutory Application is filed seeking condonation of the delay of 478 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4315/2022. 3. The grounds of delay are explained in paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 of the instant application. Canvassing for the applicant, Ms. Sharma, learned counsel, contends that it is evident from paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 that the delay in filing the connected appeal was the result of necessary and unavoidable official procedure. It is further contended by Ms. Sharma, learned counsel, that there was no deliberate and/or intentional lapse on the part of the officers. Ms. Sharma, 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. In support of his contentions, Ms. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector of Land Acquisition, Page No.# 3/5 Anantnag & Anr –Vs- Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in [(1987) 2 SCC 107]. 4. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. It is true that a certain amount of latitude, considering impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology, is not impermissible; however, sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach. It is by now well settled that the Government or a wing of 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 appeals is not an individual but an institutional decision, which necessarily goes by the proverb “red-tape”, however, there are limits to the same. 6. In the case in hand, the approach of the applicant, in our considered opinion, is nothing but a stereotypical explanation. The explanations given at paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 do not disclose any unavoidable circumstance and/or genuine difficulties; rather, the person/persons of the concerned Department have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter. 7. The applicant admittedly received a copy of the aforenoted judgment & order in due time and had sent the matter to the Circle Officer, Dhubri Revenue Circle, asking for a report in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner/respondent herein in the said writ petition. However, when it was sent to the Circle Officer, the matter was discussed with the Govt. Pleader as projected and the Govt. Pleader advised for filing such appeal, is not at all pleaded and/or disclosed in the application. Page No.# 4/5 8. According to them, though in the 1st week of January, 2025, the decision for filing of writ appeal was communicated to the Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam; however, the same did not reach to the office of the Sr. Govt. Advocate, and again in the 2nd week of October, 2025, the office of the applicant furnished the documents to the Sr. Govt. Advocate. 9. There is no explanation why such a decision did not reach the office of the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate. We can appreciate that every day’s delay may not be explained; however, in the present case, not to say about every day’s delay, in our opinion, no ground has been demonstrated, not to say sufficient ground, to condone the delay. In fact, the permission granted by us under order dated 04.05.2026 to file an additional affidavit bringing on record the additional reasons has also not been availed, and no additional affidavit has been filed till date. 10. In the backdrop of the explanation given, the argument on behalf of the applicant that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and for genuine difficulties does not find favour with this Court. 11. The facts detailed at paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 are nothing but a lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter and a lackadaisical approach. 12. We also take note of the fact that the concerned officer is well aware and/or conversant with the issues involved, including the prescribed period of limitation for filing a writ appeal. 13. The applicant 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 Page No.# 5/5 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. In this regard, this Court can gainfully press into service the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivamma (DEAD) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, where the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as sufficient ground for condonation of delay, especially when the State machinery is involved. The Courts, particularly Constitutional Courts, should not bypass procedure for State agencies that are lackadaisical in their approach. 14. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 478 days in preferring the connected appeal. 15. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant