Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010276122025 2026:GAU-AS:3566- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/4082/2025 THE UCO BANK AND 2 ORS HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 10 B.T.M. SARANI, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL 700001 2: THE GENERAL MANAGER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY PERSONNEL SERVICES DEPTT. UCO BANK 10 B T M SARANI KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 700001 3: THE ZONAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY UCO BANK ZONAL OFFICE M.D .ROAD SILPUKHURI GUWAHATI ASAM 78100 VERSUS KANDARPA KUMAR KALITA S/O LATE GIRISH CHANDRA KALITA, R/O HOUSE NO.41, FATASIL, GANESHPARA, BATHOU MANDIRPATH, P.O DHIRENPARA, P.S FATASIL AMBARI,KAMRUP M, GUWAHATI, ASSAM -781025. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SHARMA, MS. S YASMIN,MR H K SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR P C SARMA, U BHARADWAJ,MS. L WANGSA,MR. T DEURI Page No.# 2/4 For the Applicants :- Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel, For the opposite party/ respondent :- Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 11-03-2026 (A.D. Choudhury, J) 1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of the delay of 230 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal against the judgment & order dated 24.09.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 5574/2018. 2. The aforenoted writ petition was filed by the sole respondent/opposite party assailing amongst other, order of dismissal dated 01.01.2018 and order of appeal dated 05.06.2018 passed by the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge under its order dated 24.09.2024 (supra), allowed the aforenoted writ petition. 3. In paragraph Nos. 4 to 9 of this application, the applicants have cited the reasons for delay in preferring the connected Writ Appeal. 4. The length of the delay is indeed a relevant factor to be considered when deciding an application for condonation of delay. However, when Page No.# 3/4 sufficient causes are shown, the discretion vested in the Courts to condone delay is to be exercised, though sufficient cause shall not mean a mere explanation given superficially. 5. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicants have sufficiently explained the reasons of delay and have been able to substantiate that due to some formal procedures, they were prevented from approaching the Court promptly and within the prescribed period of limitation. We do not see any negligence, lack of bona-fide or inaction on the part of the applicants. 6. Based on the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the applicants were not diligent or that the delay was intentional. 7. Thus, having considered the explanation tendered by the applicants, this Court is satisfied that the delay occasioned in preferring the connected Writ Appeal was neither deliberate nor actuated by negligence but resulted from bona-fide circumstances beyond the control of the applicants. In the absence of gross latches or mala-fide intention attributable to the applicants, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits. 8. In the given facts of the present case, the explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondent by such delay. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party submits that he has no instruction to oppose the present application. 10. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and having satisfied that the causes shown are sufficient to condone the delay of 230 days, we deem it Page No.# 4/4 appropriate to condone the delay. 11. The instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed off. 12. The Registry to process the connected appeal and, if the same is found defect free, shall list the same under the appropriate heading, preferably on 08.05.2026. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant