Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010033902026 2026:GAU-AS:3387-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No : I.A.(Civil)/485/2026 ASMA BEGUM W/O MOSTOFA UDDIN D/O ATTAR ALI VILLAGE KHANGKHANG BASTI P.S.- LANKA DISTRICT HOJAI ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS SHASTRI BHAWAN TILAK MARG NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR BLOCK-C ASSAM SECRETARIAT Page No.# 2/3 DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER GOALPARA P.O.- BALADMARI P.S. DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783121. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782442. ------------ Advocate for : MR. N H MAZARBHUIYAN Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 06.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. L. Wajeeda, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned counsel for ECI, Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate. 2. By filing this interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 4619 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected writ appeal. 3. The learned CGC, State and Departmental counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made in this interlocutory application for condoning of Page No.# 3/3 delay. 4. Considering the nature of the explanation of delay of 4619 days, the same is not found satisfactory because the said judgment Md. Bahaluddin Sheikh Vs. Union of India & Ors., has been widely reported as follows, viz., AIR 2013 Gau 181 : (2013) 4 GLT 309: 2013 (3) GLT 264: (2013) 2 NEJ 713: (2014) 13 RCR (Civ) 1540: (2013) 0 Supreme (Gau) 214: 2013 SCC Online Gau 108. 5. It may be stated that under misconception that the condonation application is for delay in filing of the interlocutory application for leave to file appeal, the application was orally allowed. However, it was never pointed that condonation application was for appeal and not for leave to file appeal. However, later on, before signing the order, when the file was perused, it has been noticed that this condonation application was filed for the delay in filing appeal. Therefore, as the delay is not satisfactorily explained, delay cannot be allowed. 6. Therefore, on account of insufficient explanation for the huge delay, this interlocutory application is dismissed. 7. Resultantly, the un-numbered writ appeal bearing filing number WA/109/2026 is also dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant