Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010277152025 2026:GAU-AS:1966- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/27/2026 M/S SANYEEJI ISPAT LTD. AND ANR HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 9, BRINDABAN MARKET, S.J. ROAD, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI-781001, ASSAM.REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 2: SHRI DHIRAJ KUMAR JAISWAL DIRECTOR OF APPLICANT NO. 1 R/O HOUSE NO. 29A SAI SARNAM BILPAR CHABNIPOOL REHABARI GUWAHATI - 781008 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD APDCL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI - 781001 2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) APDCL BIJULIBHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI - 781001 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D) APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (TI) Page No.# 2/6 APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 5:THE DEPUTY MANAGER (TI) APDCL LAR BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 6:THE AREA MANAGER IRCA II APDCL JALUKBARI GUWAHATI 781012 7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GE II APDCL GARIGAON JALUKBAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY, MR.T YADAV,MS. P AGARWALA,MS. V RAI,JYOTISH DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, For the applicants :- Mr. S.P.Roy, learned counsel, For the opposite parties :- Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 11-02-2026 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J) 1. Heard Mr. S.P.Roy, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. S. P. Page No.# 3/6 Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents. 2. The present Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is filed seeking condonation of the delay of 115 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the judgment and order(oral) dated 18.07.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 8154/2017. 3. The applicants have approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 8154/2017, assailing a “Provisional Assessment Bill” assessed under the Electricity Act, 2003 based on the alleged malpractice. 4. Prior to filing of such a writ petition, the applicants preferred an Appeal before the Statutory Appellate Authority against such a provisional assessment bill; however, during the pendency of the said appeal, a Final Assessment bill was made finalizing the Provisional Assessment Bill. 5. Against such Final Assessment Bill, the applicants preferred yet another appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 6. Praying for waiver off 50% of the statutory deposit, for filing such statutory appeal, another writ petition being WP(C) No. 6807/2014 was filed, which was disposed of under order dated 09.01.2015, directing the applicants to deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only within a period of three days from the date of said order, and the applicants were given a further period of six months to deposit 50% of the assessment bill. 7. The appeal was decided on 05.01.2016, holding that the applicants Page No.# 4/6 committed malpractice, however, the penalty bill was held to be incorrect, with a further direction to calculate the amount in a definite manner. 8. In terms of such Appellate Order, the respondents revised the earlier bill with a notice to the applicants to pay the additional amount within the date specified in the Notice. 9. Being aggrieved, the applicants submitted a representation against such a decision, which was rejected by the authority, and accordingly, another writ petition being WP(C) No. 4983/2017 was filed, which was disposed of on 21.08.2017, directing the applicants to file a fresh representation. 10. Subsequently, the fresh representation filed was also rejected, after which the applicants preferred WP(C) No. 8154/2017. 11. The learned Single Judge under its Judgment and Order(oral) dated 18.07.2025 impugned in the connected writ appeal, interfered with the revised assessment bill and also the rejection order, with a liberty to the APDCL authority to seek any review/rectification of the order of the appellate authority. 12. Subsequently, a review petition was filed, which was disposed of on 31.12.2025 by the appellate authority directing the APDCL to undertake a fresh assessment bill in accordance with law. 13. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge impugned in the connected appeal has already been given effect to; the appellate authority on remand based on the order of the learned Single Judge has also decided the issue and directed the assessing authority for a fresh Page No.# 5/6 reassessment exercise and therefore, the applicants shall be still at liberty to assail such decision of the appellate authority before the appropriate forum. 14. Be that as it may, by now, the law is well settled that the law of limitation is substantive in nature and the limitation periods cannot be extended on mere equitable consideration; the applicants must demonstrate reasonable, satisfactory and acceptable cause of delay. 15. In the case in hand, when the applicants, instead of promptly assailing the judgment, opted to wait for the outcome of the decision of the Appellate Authority on remand, the explanation offered for the delay cannot be said to be reasonable, satisfactory and acceptable cause of delay. 16. Beyond that, the ground of delay pleaded in the application reveals that the grievance of the applicants revolves around the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Appellate Authority to entertain a review petition, which cannot be permitted in a condonation petition. 17. Beyond that, the applicants have miserably failed to give any justification in the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeal, except by questioning the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to entertain a review petition and the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge relegating the respondents to seek a review of the order under challenge in the said writ petition after interfering with the same. 18. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the applicants have failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of Page No.# 6/6 115 days in preferring the connected appeal. 19. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant