Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/678/2026 of AINAL MIYAN AND 3 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 12 July 2026
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
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
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
------------
Advocate for : RABIYA BEGAM
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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
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.
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