Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010025782026 2026:GAU-AS:6017- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/422/2026 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2: THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019 3: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. 4: THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. 5: THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NOWBOICHA DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS KAWAIMARI NA PAMUA LP SCHOOL LAKHIMPUR REP. BY ITS HEADMASTER SRI MADAN CH. DOLEY SON OF LT. LAKHIRAM DOLEY, R/O VILL. NO.1 KAWAIMARI, P.O. BADHAKARA, DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 Page No.# 2/6 3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIJAN KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 4:THE DIST. MISSION CO ORDINATOR AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIJAN NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J KHATANIAR, MS. S CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE, S K LAHAN(R1),MR. N BORAH(R1),SC, SSA BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 04-05-2026 (Arun Dev Choudhury,J) 1. Heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents. 2. The present Interlocutory Application is filed seeking condonation of the delay of 94 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2184/2017, as well as the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 34/2025. 3. The grounds of delay are explained in paragraphs Nos. 4 to 6 of the instant application. 4. Canvassing for the applicants, Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel, contends that it is evident from paragraphs. 4 to 6, that the delay in filing the Page No.# 3/6 connected appeal was a result of a necessary and unavoidable official procedure. 5. It is further contended by Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel, that there was no deliberate and/or intentional lapse on the part of the officers; rather, the State was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 6. Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel also contends that a liberal approach may be adopted while condoning the delay, and this Court may not take too strict and pedantic a stand, which may result in injustice. 7. In support of his contentions, Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the applicants, places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr –Vs- Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in [(1987) 2 SCC 107]. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents relying on the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Chief Post Master General & Ors –Vs- Living Media India Ltd and Anr., reported in [AIR 2012 SC 1506] contends that there is gross negligence on the part of the State authorities in approaching this Court within time and the causes shown at paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 cannot be termed as “sufficient cause” and therefore, such delay may not be condoned, inasmuch as, by now it is well settled that bureaucratic delay cannot be termed as “sufficient cause.” Page No.# 4/6 9. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is true that a certain amount of latitude, given impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology, is not impermissible; however, sufficient cause should be weighed pragmatically within a justice-oriented approach. 11. It is by now well settled that Government may not be treated as any other private litigant, so far as it relates to condonation of delay, for the reason that the Government’s decision to present and prosecute an appeal is not an individual but an institutional decision, which necessarily goes by the proverb “red-tape”; however, there are limits to the same. 12. In the case in hand, the approach of the State and its officers, in our considered opinion, is nothing but stereotype explanation. The explanations given in paragraphs Nos. 4 to 6 do not disclose any unavoidable circumstances or genuine difficulties; the person (s) of the concerned Department have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter. 13. The applicants admittedly came to know about the aforenoted order of Review Petition on 04.08.2025, and the same was put up in the file on the same day through the concerned Branch Officer for necessary instructions. Accordingly, the Branch Officer placed the file before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, for necessary instruction for filing an appeal. Page No.# 5/6 Upon due approval, a letter was issued on 29.08.2025 to the learned Sr. Standing counsel of the Department with a request to file an appeal against the order dated 27.11.2020, and after receipt of the entire case records, the matter was entrusted to one of the Standing counsels of the Department, and the appeal came to be filed on 01.12.2025. 14. Another aspect of the matter is that the impugned order was passed on 27.11.2020. The respondents remained silent on the matter and, after more than 4 years, filed a Review Petition seeking a review of the aforenoted order on 26.03.2025. No explanation has been given for the period spent, with effect from 27.11.2020, when the impugned order was passed in WP(C) No. 2184/2017, till the respondent chose to prefer a review before the learned Single Judge on 26.03.2025. Even from the dismissal of the review petition dated 28.07.2025, the explanations given till the filing of the present appeal are not at all satisfactory. 15. In our opinion, such conduct is nothing but administrative lethargy and laxity, which can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, especially when the State machinery is involved, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivamma (DEAD) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11794/2025). 16. In our opinion, the Constitutional Court, in the given facts of the present case, should not bypass the procedure for State agencies that are Page No.# 6/6 lackadaisical in their approach. 17. In the backdrop of the explanation given, the argument on behalf of the State that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and for genuine difficulties does not find favour with this Court. 18. The facts detailed in paragraphs Nos. 4 to 6 amount to a lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter and constitute a lackadaisical approach. We also note that the officers in the Department are well aware of and/or conversant with the issues involved, including the prescribed period for filing a writ appeal. 19. The State cannot be allowed to take advantage of the leeway granted to the Government while condoning delay, only for the reason of bureaucratic delays, more particularly, in a case like the present one, where a plausible and acceptable explanation is absent, inasmuch as delay cannot be condoned mechanically, merely because the government or a wing of government is a party before us. 20. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant