I.A.(Civil)/276/2026 of THE SECRETARY AND ANR Vs ON THE DEATH OF SMT KAMALA PHUKAN AND 2 ORS on 18 June 2026

ORDER

19.06.2026 (A.D. Choudhury, J)

1. We have heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC for the applicants/Union of India. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned Advocate and Mr. U. Sharma, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, representing the respondents respectively.

2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant/Union of India seeking condonation of the delay of

761 days in preferring the connected appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 2300/2022 and the order dated 14.08.2025, passed in Review Petition No. 138/2023.

3. The grounds of delay are explained in paragraph No. 3 of the instant application.

4. Canvassing for the applicant(s), Mr. Chakravarty, learned CGC, contends that it is evident from paragraph-3 that the delay in filing the connected appeal was a result of a necessary and unavoidable official procedure.

5. It is further contended by Mr. Chakravarty, learned CGC, that there was no deliberate and/or intentional lapse on the part of the officers; rather, the Central Government was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

6. Mr. Chakravarty, learned CGC, also contends that a liberal approach may be adopted while condoning the delay, and this Court may not take too strict and pedantic a stand, which may result in injustice.

7. In support of his contentions, Mr. Chakravarty, learned CGC for the applicant(s), places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr –Vs- Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in [(1987) 2 SCC 107].

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents relying on the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Chief Post Master General & Ors –Vs-

Living Media India Ltd and Anr., reported in [AIR 2012 SC 1506] contends that there is gross negligence on the part of the Central authorities in approaching this Court within time and the causes shown at paragraph No. 3 cannot be termed as “sufficient cause” and therefore, such delay may not be condoned, inasmuch as, by now it is well settled that bureaucratic delay cannot be termed as “sufficient cause.”

9. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

10. It is true that a certain amount of latitude, given impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology, is not impermissible; however, sufficient cause should be weighed pragmatically within a justice-oriented approach.

11. It is by now well settled that Government may not be treated as any other private litigant, so far as it relates to condonation of delay, for the reason that the Government’s decision to present and prosecute an appeal is not an individual but an institutional decision, which necessarily goes by the proverb “red-tape”; however, there are limits to the same.

12. In the case at hand, the approach of the Central Government and its officers, in our considered opinion, amounts to a stereotypical explanation. The explanations given in paragraph No. 3 do not disclose any unavoidable circumstances or genuine difficulties; the person(s) of the concerned Department have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter.

13. The applicant(s) admittedly came to know about the

Judgment & Order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2300/2022, immediately. However, instead of complying with the aforesaid Judgment & Order or preferring any appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, chose to file a Review Petition on 11.02.2023, registered as Review Petition No.138/2023. The same was dismissed on 14.08.2025. In fact, the Review Petition was also filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

14. The explanation given by the applicant(s) is that after dismissal of the Review Petition on 14.08.2025, the learned CGC rendered his opinion on 26.08.2025, and after examining at the local level, the draft of the appeal was approved on 12.10.2025, and thereafter, the connected appeal was filed on 30.10.2025.

15. In our opinion, such conduct is nothing but administrative lethargy and laxity, which can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, especially when the State/Central machinery is involved, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivamma (DEAD) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11794/2025).

16. In our opinion, the Constitutional Court, in the given facts of the present case, should not bypass the procedure for Central Government Agencies that are lackadaisical in their approach.

17. In the backdrop of the explanation given, the argument on behalf of the Central Government that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and for genuine difficulties does not find favour with this Court.

18. The facts detailed in paragraph No. 3 amount to a lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter and constitute a lackadaisical approach. We also note that the officers in the Department are well aware of and/or conversant with the issues involved, including the prescribed period for filing a writ appeal.

19. The Central Government cannot be allowed to take advantage of the leeway granted to the Government while condoning delay, only for the reason of bureaucratic delays, more particularly, in a case like the present one, where a plausible and acceptable explanation is absent, inasmuch as delay cannot be condoned mechanically, merely because the government or a wing of government is a party before us.

20. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant