I.A.(Civil)/2142/2026 of SMTI RANJU AGARWAL AND ANR. Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM 7 ORS. on 29 September 2026

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.7 & 8.

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.1212/2023.

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