Allowed

Mazibar Rahman v. Nazrul Hussain and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Sept 2019I.A.(Civil)/2072/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Guwahati High Court condoned a delay of 33 days in preferring a connected appeal. The applicant explained that he was unaware of the impugned judgment disposing of the writ petition without notice.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 33 days is condoned and the interlocutory application is disposed of.

Mazibar Rahman Vs Nazrul Hussain and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010120222019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 2072/2019

¶5

1:MAZIBAR RAHMAN

¶6

S/O- NAZIR UDDIN AHMED, VILL.- BATSOR, P.O. BATSOR, P.S. BELSOR, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:NAZRUL HUSSAIN AND 6 ORS

¶9

S/O- BODIUJJAMAL, VILL. AND P.O. BATSOR, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶12

GUWAHATI-6.

¶13

3:DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.

¶14

4:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS N.D.C. NALBARI P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- NALBARI.

¶15

5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE NALBARI REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NALBARI DISTRICT P.O. NALBARI ASSAM.

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

6:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE NALBARI REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.

¶18

7:HEADMASTER B.B.S.B. HIGH SCHOOL BARKHETRI BARNI P.O. BATSOR DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 06-09-2019

¶25

[A. K. Goswami, C.J. (Acting)]

¶26

Heard Mr. M. H. Laskar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and Ms. R. S. Deuri, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.

¶27

By filing this Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant prays for condoning the delay of 33 days in preferring the connected appeal. Though the applicant was respondent No. 7 in WP(C) 1962/2019, the writ petition was disposed of without any notice to him. It is stated that the applicant came to know about the impugned judgement only when he was making enquiries in the Directorate of Secondary Education regarding provincialisation of his service.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record,

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

the delay of 33 days is condoned.

¶31

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Mazibar Rahman v. Nazrul Hussain and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mazibar Rahman v. Nazrul Hussain and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Prasad and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 13 Ors.

Union of India and 5 Ors. Vs Jayanta Dey and 7 Ors.

Ibrahim Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Joshna Narzary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sri Luish Aind Vs Mrs. Susana Bara

The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Vs M/S Srd Nutrients Private Limited