Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010191832025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1376/2026 in WA/306/2025 THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. VERSUS ARUN KONWAR S/O SURENDRA KONWARR/O BANGMURIA KONWAR GAON P.S. SIMALUGURI DIST. SIBSAGAR ASSAM 2:ACHYUT HATIMURIA RO BANGMURIA KONWAR GAON P.S. SIMALUGURI DIST. SIBSAGAR ASSAM. 3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL GENERAL OF POLICE (CR) DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG Page No.# 2/5 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOLAGHAT ASSAM GOLAGHAT ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JORHAT ASSAM JORHAT ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIBRUGARH ASSAM DIBRUGARH ASSAM 7:THE COMMANDENT 1ST AP BN LIGIRIPUKHURI NAZIRA SIBSAGAR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. D NATH Advocate for : DR R C BORPATRA GOHAIN appearing for ARUN KONWAR BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 20-05-2026 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J) 1. We have heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Dr. R.C. Borpatragohain, learned counsel and Mrs. S. Borpatragohain, learned counsel, for the respondents/opposite parties. 2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of the delay of 48 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4283/2012. 3. Learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties have vehemently objected to the present application. They contend that the connected appeal was filed on Page No.# 3/5 22.08.2025, i.e., after 74 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 05.06.2025. But the applicant/appellant has filed this application for condonation of delay of 48 days only with an intention to mislead this Court. 4. Learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties further contend that the applicant/appellant obtained two certified copies on two different dates to suppress the delay of 74 days. According to them, delay occurred in preferring the connected appeal is inordinate. 5. Referring to paragraph Nos. 1 (iv) & (v) of the instant application, learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties also contend that calling of relevant records and time consumed in correspondence between the Senior Government Advocate and the concerned Police officials cannot be legally acceptable ground for condoning the delay as because now a days, the relevant records can be obtained digitally within a moment to file an appeal or any petition on time. 6. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the averments made in the application. 7. 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. 8. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties though forcefully advanced do not persuade this Court to reject the prayer for condonation of delay. The contention that the applicant/appellant deliberately understated the period of delay by referring to 48 days instead of 74 days, does not itself, establish any mala-fide intention or deliberate suppression. What is relevant for the purpose of condonation of delay is not hyper-technical computation of delay, but Page No.# 4/5 whether the explanation furnished for the period occasioned inspires confidence and discloses sufficient cause. Merely because two certified copies were obtained on two different dates, cannot automatically lead to an interference that the applicant/appellant intended to mislead this Court, particularly, when sequence of administrative processing and movement of files within the government machinery has been explained in the application. 9. In matters involving the State machinery certain amount of procedural delay occasioned due to administrative formalities and inter-departmental correspondence cannot be viewed with the same strictness as in private litigation, unless negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is demonstratively established. 10. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicant/appellant has sufficiently explained the reasons of delay and has been able to substantiate that reason beyond its control, the State was deflected 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 applicant/appellant. 11. Based on the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the applicant/appellant was not diligent or that the delay was intentional. 12. Thus, having considered the explanation tendered by the applicant/appellant, 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 applicant/appellant. In the absence of gross laches or mala-fide intention attributable to the applicant/appellant, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits. 13. In the given facts of the present case, the explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondents by such delay. Page No.# 5/5 14. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and having satisfied that the causes shown are sufficient to condone the delay, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. 15. The instant Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. 16. Registry shall list the connected appeal being WA No.306/2025 on 27.07.2026 under the appropriate heading. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant