Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/2140/2026 of SMTI RANJU AGARWAL AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS. on 29 September 2026
GAHC010121622026 2026:GAU-AS:14628-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2140/2026 SMTI RANJU AGARWAL AND ANR W/O SRI RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL (JINDAL), R/O CHIRWAPATTY ROAD, NEAR DEVI MANDIR, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT- TINSUKIA,
GAHC010121622026
2026:GAU-AS:14628-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2140/2026
SMTI RANJU AGARWAL AND ANR
W/O SRI RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL (JINDAL), R/O CHIRWAPATTY ROAD, NEAR DEVI MANDIR, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, ASSAM- 786125
2: RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL (JINDAL)
S/O LATE HANUMAN PRASAD AGARWAL
R/O CHIRWAPATTY ROAD
NEAR DEVI MANDIR
P.O.
P.S. AND DISTRICT- TINSUKIA
ASSAM- 78612
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TOWN
AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TINSUKIA MUNICIPAL BOARD
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125
4:M/S DAYAL CONSTRUCTIONS
REPRESENTED BY SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHURY
HAVING OFFICE AT C/O M/S DAYAL ENTERPRISES
A.T. ROAD (MAKUM ROAD)
NEAR TOKRIGOLA
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125
5:RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHURY
S/O LATE SATYANARAYAN CHOUDHURY
R/O CHALIHA NAGAR
NEAR TINSUKIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125 AND ALSO HAVING THEIR OFFICE ADDRESS AT C/O M/S
DAYAL ENTERPRISES
A.T. ROAD (MAKUM ROAD)
NEAR TOKRIGOLA
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125
6:RAVI CHOUDHURY
S/O SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHURY
R/O CHALIHA NAGAR
NEAR TINSUKIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125 AND ALSO HAVING THEIR OFFICE ADDRESS AT C/O M/S
DAYAL ENTERPRISES
A.T. ROAD (MAKUM ROAD)
NEAR TOKRIGOLA
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125
7:VISHAL CHOUDHURY
S/O SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHURY
R/O CHALIHA NAGAR
NEAR TINSUKIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125 AND ALSO HAVING THEIR OFFICE ADDRESS AT C/O M/S
DAYAL ENTERPRISES
A.T. ROAD (MAKUM ROAD)
NEAR TOKRIGOLA
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125
8:SHASHI CHOUDHURY
S/O SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHURY
R/O SHAKSHI MOTORS
CHIRWAPATTY ROAD
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
9:SMTI SWAPNA GARODIA
W/O SANJAY GARODIA
C/O GARODIA AUTOMOBILES
MORAN TOWN
P.O. AND P.S.- MORAN
DIST- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN- 78564
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R J DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS M ZOMUANPUII (R-4,5,6,7),MR J SINGH (R- 4,5,6,7),MR H AGARWAL (R-4,5,6,7),MRS J M KONWAR (R-4,5,6,7),MR. B D KONWAR SR.
ADV. (R-4,5,6,7)
Linked Case : CRP/0/0
SMTI RANJU AGARWAL
WIFE OF SRI RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL JINDAL
RESIDENT OF CHIRWAPATTY ROAD
NEAR DEVI MANDIR
P.O.
P.S. DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125.
2: SRI RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL JINDAL
SON OF LATE HANUMAN PRASAD AGARWAL
RESIDENT OF CHIRWAPATTY ROAD
NEAR DEVI MANDIR
P.O.
P.S. DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
TOWN COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
3:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TINSUKIA MUNICIPAL BOARD
P.O.
P.S. DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125.
4:MS DAYAL CONSTRUCTIONS
REPRESENTED BY SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHURY
HAVING OFFICE AT C/O M/S DAYAL ENTERPRISES
A.T. ROAD MAKUM ROAD
NEAR TOKRIGOLA
P.O.
P.S. DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125.
5:SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHURY
SON OF LATE SATYANARAYAN CHOUDHURYOF SHAKSHI MOTORS
CHIRWAPATTY ROAD
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
6:SMTI SWAPNA GARODIA
WIFE OF SANJAY GARODIA
C/O GARODIA AUTOMOBILES
MORAN TOWN
P.O. P.S. MORAN
DISTRICT SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN 785640.
------------
Advocate for : HARSHIT AGARWAL
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
30.09.2026 (K. Goswami, J)
Heard Mr. R. J. Das, learned counsel for the applicants; Ms. U. Sharma, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 6 and Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 7.
2. This application has been filed for condoning the delay of 82 days in preferring the connected writ appeal against the judgment dated 19.02.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.392/2023.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the applicants preferred the connected writ appeal. However,as the appeal could not be instituted within the prescribed period of limitation,there is a delay of 82 days in filing the same,for which the present application has been preferred.
4. The explanations furnished in the application are that although the Judgment and Order was pronounced on 19.02.2026, it was uploaded on the official website only on 03.03.2026. Thereafter, the applicants consulted their earlier counsel and in view of the complex legal issues involved, sought further opinions from other learned counsel. The process was prolonged by the voluminous records, the professional commitments of counsel and subsequently,the indisposition and prior engagements of the newly engaged counsel before the Itanagar Permanent Bench. The consultations were finally concluded on 14.05.2026,following which the connected Writ Appeal was drafted and filed.
5. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional,but occurred on account of unavoidable circumstances which were beyond the control of the applicants. He further submits that the entire period of delay has been consumed in obtaining proper legal advice on the complex issues of law involved therein, including the interpretation of the statutory provisions relating to height calculation,the applicability of the 2022 by-laws and the doctrine of res judicata.
6. Per contra,learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents objected to the delay of condonation on the ground of the delay being not sufficiently explained.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the contending parties and having considered the explanations furnished,we are satisfied that the delay is sufficiently explained. The delay appears to have resulted from the time taken in obtaining legal advice and completing the requisite formalities and was neither deliberate nor mala fide.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,sufficient causes having been shown,the delay of 82 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal is condoned.
9. The interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed off.
10. Registry to process the connected writ appeal and list the same on 25.11.2026 under the appropriate heading.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant