Allowed

The State Level Scrutiny Committee Rep. by Its Chairperson v. Moonsoon Barkakoti and Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2021I.A.(Civil)/2032/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court condoned a 3-day delay in filing an affidavit-in-opposition by the applicant in a writ petition, accepting medical evidence of illness as the cause despite procedural irregularities.

What did the court decide?

The 3-day delay in filing the affidavit-in-opposition by the applicant is condoned; the order dated 15.09.2021 in WP(C) 2286/2021 is modified.

The State Level Scrutiny Committee… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010061582021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2032/2021

¶5

THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 2: THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 VERSUS MOONSOON BARKAKOTI AND ORS R/O- CHEKONIDHORA GAON KHELMATI CLUB ROAD P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER JORHAT ASSAM 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA

¶6

Page No.# 2/3

¶7

ASSAM 6:THE ANTI CORRUPTION LIBERATION UNION H.O.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI SHYAMAL JYOTI BORA S/O- SRI DILIP KR. BORA R/O- ALENGMORA GAON P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM -----------Advocate for : MR. R DHAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for MOONSOON BARKAKOTI AND ORS

¶8

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶9

ORDER

¶10

09.12.2021

¶11

Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants while Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel appears for the writ petitioner.

¶12

The applicants have prayed for condoning the delay of 3 days in filing the affidavit-inopposition. The Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that in terms of the order dated 15.09.2021 passed in WP(C) 2286/2021, the applicants were to file their affidavit-inopposition on or before 25.10.2021, failing which, the operation of the speaking order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the State Level “Scrutiny Committee, WPT&BC Department was to be stayed w.e.f. 26.10.2021 and the petitioner was thereafter entitled to be reinstated as Circle Officer.

¶13

The Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that due to the Standing Counsel of the WPT&BC Department being unwell because of sudden diagnosis of high blood sugar, high uric acid and high cholesterol level, he was under medication and could not file the affidavit-inopposition on or before 25.10.2021 and the same could be filed only on 28.10.2021. The Senior Counsel for the applicants thus prays that the 3 days’ delay in filing the affidavit-inopposition may be condoned.

¶14

Page No.# 3/3

¶15

Mr. J. Patowari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on the other hand submits that the applicants have wilfully violated the orders of this Court and have tried to play a fraud upon the Court. He has pointed out that the medical certificates issued against the Standing Counsel of the WPT&BC Department were issued in the month of August, 2021, while the affidavit-in-opposition was to be filed on or before 25.10.2021. He accordingly submits that the said factum of the Standing Counsel being unable to submit the affidavit-in-opposition on time could have been communicated to the Court on 29.10.2021. However, the learned counsel has not done the same. He submits that the Rule of Law has to be preserved and this Court should not condone the attempt by the applicant to mislead the Court.

¶16

I have the heard the counsels for the parties.

¶17

On perusing the medical certificates issued to the Standing Counsel of the WPT&BC Department, I find that the same has been issued in the month of August, 2021. It is also seen that the said Standing Counsel did not give any reason to this Court on 29.10.2021 with regard to the delay of 3 days in filing the affidavit-in-opposition, in terms of the order dated 15.09.2021 passed in WP(C) 2286/2021. However, keeping in view the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the Standing Counsel suffering from high blood sugar, high uric acid and high cholesterol level, this Court is of the view that the delay of 3 days in filing the affidavit-in-opposition by the WPT&BC Department should be condoned. The same is condoned. Accordingly the order dated 15.09.2021 passed in the WP(C) 2286/2019 stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶18

The interlocutory application is accordingly allowed.

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

Comparing Assistant

The State Level Scrutiny Committee Rep. by Its Chairperson v. Moonsoon Barkakoti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Level Scrutiny Committee Rep. by Its Chairperson v. Moonsoon Barkakoti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalal Uddin Mazumdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ajit Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ratan Kumar Paul and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Taijuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Suja Hussain Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Anku Mani Kalita and 2 Ors. Vs the Govt of Assam and 10 Ors.