Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020000422026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/12/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIORS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES HQ DGAR SHILLONG-10 MEGHALAYA 3: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL HEADQUARTERS 10 SECTOR ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99 APO 4: THE COMMANDANT 42 ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99 AP VERSUS NO. G/144503A, RFN/GD MOALONG 42 ASSAM RIFLES. PERMANENTADDRESS- KHENSA VILLAGE, MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : YANGER WATI, Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R Date:- 27-05-2026 (Y. Longkumer,J) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Yangerwati. Also heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent. 2. By filing the instant application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 162 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2025 passed in WP(C)/212/2022. 3. It may be noted that when the matter came up for consideration on 18.03.2026, we had perused the application and found that the grounds mentioned in the application do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the accompanying Appeal. Consequently, the applicant was allowed to file an additional affidavit. 4. The applicant has filed the additional affidavit on 17.04.2026. In the additional affidavit which has been filed, the reasons for the delay have been set out at paragraph 5 and 8. In paragraph 5 it is stated, “it is a settled principle that government are involved multi-level processing and consultation, which may consume reasonable time. In this instant case, on receipt of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2025, which was examined at inter branch levels and, decided to file an appeal. Therefore, a delay of 162 days has occurred and the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to procedural formalities inherent in official functioning”. In paragraph 8 the applicant states, “the case was Page No.# 3/7 required to be examined at various levels, including scrutiny of records, obtaining legal opinion, inter office correspondences and approval from the competent authority before taking a final decision. Such procedural steps though time consuming are mandatory to ensure the public interest is protected and the litigation is instituted only after due application of mind. The delay is thus neither deliberate not attributable to negligence but is the result of bonafide administrative processing”. 5. Therefore, we find that inspite of affording another opportunity to file a better affidavit by placing adequate material no sufficient cause has been shown and no specific dates has been given as to when the file has been processed from table to table and from branch to branch . 6. In the main application herein, we find that reasons for the delay have not been explained at all. In the entire application the applicant has only stated in paragraph 4 that, “in preferring the instant writ appeal there is a delay of 162 days”. And at paragraph 5 of the application, it is stated that there are good and substantial grounds taken in the writ appeal and in all likelihood they would succeed in the same, and that, no injustice would be caused to the respondent/petitioner in the event the delay of 162 days is condoned. 7. Besides the above statements, there is nothing in the application showing the day to day delay or at least the dates on which the process of communication was done while processing the file from department to department, branch to branch. The applicant has also not annexed any copies of correspondence letters. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on an order dated 03.03.2026 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Page No.# 4/7 I.A.(Civil)/176/2025, wherein the delay of 485 days in filing the connected writ appeal by the Union of India was condoned. The learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Yangerwati submits that the instant case is squarely covered by the said order dated 03.03.2026, and prays that the instant application may also be allowed. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr Imti Longchar by filing affidavit in opposition has strongly objected to the prayer of the applicant stating that there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay. 10. In the case of Postmaster General & ors Vrs Living Media India Ltd and anr, (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Supreme Court held that, “the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government”. The Court further held, “29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies. their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. Page No.# 5/7 The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few”. 11. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612, even went on to state that: “ 7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the Page No.# 6/7 expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation”. 12. We have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and also the authorities as discussed hereinabove. The proposition of law as laid down in the case of Ramkumar Choudhary (supra) would show that the cause of the delay must have occurred before the limitation period expired. Any circumstances or events that arise after the time limit expires can never be used as a valid excuse to condone the delay. In fact we have noted that the application as well as the additional affidavit have been filed with a lackadaisical and casual approach. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that it is the cause of delay and the sufficiency of the explanation that matters rather than the length of delay. Even a delay of several years can be condoned if valid and acceptable causes are shown while a short delay may be rejected if left unexplained. 13. Upon perusal of the said order dated 03.03.2026 in I.A. (Civil)/176/2025, it is found that in the said application, the delay had been sufficiently explained by the applicant and the inter-departmental correspondence and approval given had been shown. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of that case are distinguishable from the instant application. 14. In view of the above discussion, we find that the applicant has not Page No.# 7/7 been able to show sufficient cause for the delay of 162 days in filing the accompanying writ appeal and accordingly, the application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant