Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010118102026 2026:GAU-AS:14654-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2794/2026 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2: THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3: THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 VERSUS ANWAR HUSSAIN AND 2 ORS. SON OF LATE SAHJAHAN ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAMTIAL GAON, P.O. KALOOGAON, DISTRICT SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. 2:THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 Page No.# 2/5 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Department of School Education. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 1. –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 01.10.2026 (K. Goswami, J) We have heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Department of School Education, for the applicants and Mr. M. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. By way of this application, the applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 352 days which has occurred in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 01.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 7560/2023. 3. The delay is attributed primarily due to prolonged administrative examination and consultation within the Department, owing to the legal and financial implications of the impugned judgment. Although the Department decided to challenge the judgment and repeatedly communicated with the learned Senior Standing Counsel on 20.06.2025, 10.11.2025, 09.12.2025 and 30.03.2026, the appeal could not be filed earlier due to communication gaps/miscommunication between the Department and the Standing Counsel’s office. The applicants contend that the delay was bona fide, inadvertent and beyond deliberate inaction or negligence, and that they had remained vigilant and taken repeated steps to pursue the legal remedy. Page No.# 3/5 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that there has been no intentional or willful negligence on the part of the applicants in filing the connected appeal and hence wants a liberal consideration by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the explanations furnished are general and not specific. He further submits that the government agencies or its instrumentalities cannot have a special premium in the matter of relaxation to condone the delay. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 7. It appears from the chronology of events that the delay in filing the appeal occurred primarily on account of the time consumed at various levels within the Department of School Education, Government of Assam, after receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order under appeal, in taking a considered decision to challenge the same. Upon such decision being taken, necessary communications were addressed to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, School Education Department, requesting him to take appropriate steps for filing the appeal. Thereafter, upon receipt of notice in the contempt proceedings, the Department issued reminders dated 20.06.2025, 10.11.2025, 09.12.2025 and 30.03.2026 to the office of the learned Senior Standing Counsel seeking necessary action. Ultimately, the appeal came to be filed in May 2026. The chronology thus indicates that the applicants had been pursuing the Page No.# 4/5 matter with the concerned Standing Counsel from time to time. 8. Undoubtedly, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while recognizing the impersonal nature of governmental functioning and the procedural delays inherent in governmental decision-making, has held that a certain degree of latitude may be permissible while considering an application filed by the State for condonation of delay. Such latitude, however, does not dispense with the requirement of establishing sufficient cause. Reference may be made in this regard to State of Haryana -Vs- Chandra Mani & Ors. :: (1996) 3 SCC 132. 9. Thus, administrative exigencies, by themselves, do not confer an automatic entitlement upon the State to seek condonation of delay. Nevertheless, a pragmatic approach may be adopted having regard to the nature of governmental functioning, provided the circumstances pleaded constitute sufficient cause. In the present case, the chronology of events, read as a whole, demonstrates that the Department had taken steps to pursue the proposed challenge and had periodically followed up the matter with the concerned Standing Counsel. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, mala fide or attributable to gross negligence. The delay, therefore, appears to have arisen from bona fide administrative processes and subsequent coordination with the learned Standing Counsel. Accordingly, sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. 10. That being so, the delay of 352 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned. Page No.# 5/5 11. The interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed off. 12. Registry to process the connected appeal and list the same on 08.11.2026 under the appropriate heading. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant