Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010028182026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/678/2026 AINAL MIYAN AND 3 ORS S/O SUKHI MIYAN, R/O VILL. GUMA, P.O. GUMAPHULBARI. 2: NUR HAQUE S/O LATE TOLAJUDDIN R/O VILL. BALIDHARI P.O .CHENIMARI 3: SAHED MIYAN S/O R/O VILL. BALAPARA P.O. GUMAPHULBARI 4: ANUWAR HUSSAIN S/O HAVE BAUDDIN R/O VILL. BALAPARA P.O. GHUMAPHULBARI ALL ARE P.S. TARABAI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 78130 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERAIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM KHANAPARA Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI 781022 3:THE ADDL. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI 781022 4:THE ZONAL REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM GUWAHATI ZONE BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 781005 5:THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES BARPETA ASSAM 781301 6:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM 78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y S MANNAN, M BEGUM,MS R BEGAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CO OP, GA, ASSAM Linked Case : CRP/0/0 AINAL MIYAN ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTEDBRBY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARYBRTO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM BRCOOPERATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 Page No.# 3/4 ------------ Advocate for : RABIYA BEGAM Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 13.07.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) 1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned Standing counsel for the Cooperation Department representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing the respondent No. 6. 2. By filing this interlocutory application, the applicants who are the applicant in the connected unregistered intra-court appeal has prayed for condoning the delay of 201 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the applicants are suffering from acute financial hardship and the connected intra-court appeal has been filed aggrieved by the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) imposed on the applicants. It is submitted that the limited purpose of the connected intra-court appeal is only in respect of the imposition of cost on the applicants. Page No.# 4/4 4. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for Cooperation Department has submitted that there is no material to support the contention of the applicants that they are suffering from financial hardships. Moreover, they have not disclosed as to when they actually came to know about the order of the Court which is imposing the cost in the connected intra-court appeal. 5. In respect of the issue of cost, the learned Standing counsel for the Cooperation Department has submitted that the learned Single Judge held the writ petition to be frivolous and in that regard, reliance was placed on the case of M/s. Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs. BOC India Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 345. It is submitted that in that case, the Supreme Court of India imposed the cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) on the petitioner of that case for filing false and misleading affidavit. 6. Be that as it may, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants that the connected appeal is only in respect of the cost imposed by this Court, the Court is of the consideration opinion that on the facts presented in this case, without intending this order to be a precedent, the delay of 201 days beyond the period of limitation is hereby condoned. 6. The Registry shall register the connected intra-court appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant