I.A.(Civil)/515/2026 of THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS Vs RABBUL HUDA AND 30 ORS on 7 June 2026

ORDER

08-06-2026 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J)

1. We have heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, for the applicants/petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. L. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties.

2. It has been informed that the application intimating that the respondent/opposite party No.21, has left the world of living has been moved today.

3. Let the name of the respondent/opposite party No.21 be deleted from the array of parties at the risk of the parties.

4. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants/petitioners seeking condonation of the delay of 810 days in preferring the connected Review Petition for review of the Order dated 20.02.2023 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No. 355/2022.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties has vehemently objected to the present application. He contends that the reason of delay between the period from 19.10.2023 when the SLP(C) No. 18776/2023 was dismissed to 06.11.2024, when the review petition was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, i.e., more than a year, has not been explained. Thereafter, on 11.06.2025, an application was filed for withdrawal of the review petition without explaining why such an application was filed after 7 months. The SLP was also lying defective for a long time.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties further contends that the explanation of the period from 11.06.2025 till the filing of the review application is vague. By referring to some letters of the concerned Director, without being specific as to when such letter was sent, the application has sought to explain such delay, which is neither proper nor satisfactory or for that matter is not even bonafide.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. In matters involving the State machinery certain amount of procedural delay occasioned due to administrative formalities and inter-departmental correspondence cannot be viewed with the same strictness as in private litigation, unless negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is demonstratively established.

11. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicants/petitioners has sufficiently explained the reasons of delay and has been able to substantiate that reason beyond its control, the State was deflected from approaching the Court promptly and within the prescribed period of limitation. We do not see any negligence, lack of bona- fide or inaction on the part of the applicants/petitioners.

12. Based on the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the applicants/petitioners were not diligent or that the delay was intentional.

13. Thus, having considered the explanation tendered by the applicants/petitioners, this Court is satisfied that the delay occasioned in preferring the connected review petition was neither deliberate nor actuated by negligence but resulted from bona-fide circumstances beyond the control of the applicants/petitioners. In the absence of gross laches or mala-fide intention attributable to the applicants/petitioners, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits.

14. In the given facts of the present case, the explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondents by such delay.

15. 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.

16. The instant Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

17. Registry shall process the connected Review Petition and, if the same is found defect free, list it on 10.08.2026 under the appropriate heading. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant