I.A.(Civil)/2492/2026 of ABANI BORA @ ABANI KUMAR BORAH AND ANR. Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. on 9 September 2026

ORDER

10-09-2026 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J)

1. We have heard Ms. A. Begum, learned counsel, for the applicants/appellants. Also heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel, for the respondents/opposite parties.

2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants/appellants seeking condonation of the delay of 385 days in preferring the connected writ appeal against the Order dated 30.05.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2931/2025.

3. By way of the aforesaid writ petition, the applicants/appellants had challenged a draft gradation list for promotion to the post of Head Master of provincialised High/Higher Secondary School, Nagaon, which was negated by the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties have vehemently objected to the present application. They contend that the applicants/appellants failed to diligently pursue their said writ petition and having allowed the matter to remain pending, they cannot subsequently seek condonation of substantial delay in filing the connected writ appeal, which would adversely affect the rights of other eligible candidates and stall an ongoing recruitment process.

5. Learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties further contend that the grounds of delay are not genuine; the applicants have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the instant appeal and have also failed to describe each day’s delay in preferring the condonation application.

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 period of delay, 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 whether the explanation furnished for the period occasioned inspires confidence and discloses sufficient cause.

9. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicants/appellants have sufficiently explained the reasons of delay and have been able to substantiate that reason beyond their control. We do not see any negligence, lack of bona-fide or inaction on the part of the applicants/appellants.

10. Thus, having considered the explanation tendered by the applicants/appellants, 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 applicants/appellants. In the absence of gross laches or mala-fide intention attributable to the applicants/appellants, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits.

11. 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.

12. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

13. Registry shall process the connected Writ Appeal and, if the same is found defect free, list it on 06.11.2026 under the appropriate heading.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant