Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010022102026 2026:GAU-AS:5667- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/580/2026 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 PRS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHAT-06 2: THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUPM HENGERABARI GUWAHATI-781036. 3: THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP HENGERABARI GUWAHATI-781036 VERSUS MRS SABITA PAUL AND 2 ORS WIFE OF LATE JOGESH CHANDRA PAUL, RESIDENT OF- VILLAGE-MIRZA, P.O.- MIRZA, DISTRICT-KAMRUP, PIN-781125. ASSAM. 2:THE UNION SECRETARY MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN RAFI MARG NEW DELHI-110001. 3:THE CHIRMAN BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 BASISTHA GUWAHATI-781029 ..PROFORMA RESPONDENTS Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SAIKIA, MR. J HANDIQUE,MR. S DUTTA,MR. R BORPUJARI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS. L THAKUR(R1),MR. M J GOGOI(R1),MR. A K DAS(R1) For the Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate. Mr. R. Borpujari, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. J. Gogoi, Advocate. BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 24.04.2026 (A.D.Choudhury, J). 1. We have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel as well as Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the applicants. We have also heard Mr. M. J. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of the delay of 240 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 09.05.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 5868/2012. 3. In paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of this application, the applicants Page No.# 3/4 have cited the reasons for the delay in preferring the connected Writ Appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party No. 1, relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed, argues that the applicants have failed to show “sufficient cause” in justifying the delay of 240 days in filing the connected Writ Appeal and that the delay is attributable to the lackadaisical approach of the applicants in filing the connected writ appeal and as such, the instant interlocutory application is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The length of the delay is indeed a relevant factor to be considered when deciding an application for condonation of delay. However, when 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. 7. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicants have sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay and has substantiated that, for reasons beyond their control, they had 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. 8. Based on the available materials, it cannot be said that the applicants were not diligent or that the delay was intentional. Page No.# 4/4 9. 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 laches or mala fide intention attributable to the applicants, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and having satisfied that the causes shown are sufficient to condone the delay of 240 days, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. 12. The instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of. 13. The Registry shall process the connected appeal and, if found defect-free, list it under the appropriate heading, preferably on 17.06.2026 JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant