Allowed

Sri Tilak Chetri v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2022I.A.(Civil)/757/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench condoned a delay of 735 days in filing a review petition, accepting financial hardship and family obligations as sufficient grounds. The application was allowed, enabling the review petition to be registered and listed.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay is allowed; the connected review petition is to be registered and listed.

Sri Tilak Chetri Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010252482019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/757/2020

¶5

In Review Pet.15160/2019 (Filing Number)

¶6

SRI TILAK CHETRI

¶7

S/O SRI LAL BAHADUR CHETRI, R/O VILL. NALAMULEH, P.O. JIADHOL, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110003

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO-TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE BLOCK-II CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI PIN 110003

¶11

3:THE COMMANDANT 9TH BATTALION INDO-TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE HOME MINISTRY GOVT. OF INDIA C/O 99 APO PIN 934409.

¶12

4:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (N.E. REGION) REGIONAL HEADQUARTER DEBENDRA NAGAR (TEZPUR) PIN 784001

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B ACHARYYA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

Linked Case :

SRI TILAK CHETRI

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

¶20

-----------Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

¶21

BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶22

:: O R D E R ::

¶23

03.06.2022

¶24

[N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ(Acting)]

¶25

Heard Mr. B. Acharyya, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

The present application has been filed for condoning the delay of 735 days in filing the connected review petition.

¶27

The applicant has assigned the reasons for delay in filing the connected review petition in para No.6 of the application stating that the applicant belongs to a very poor family and was looking after his old and ailing parents because of which he had to undergo substantial expenditure and somehow he managed to come to Delhi to file a Special Leave Petition (Civil) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

It has been submitted after the applicant was rendered unemployed he had to go serious financial difficulties because of which he could not make necessary arrangement for approaching this Court in time and accordingly, the said delay has occurred.

¶30

We have also heard Ms. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal materials on record, we are satisfied that the applicant has assigned sufficient causes for condoning the delay.

¶32

Accordingly, the present application is allowed by condoning the delay of 735 days in filing the connected review petition.

¶33

Registry to register and number the connected review petition.

¶34

Accordingly, Registry to list the connected review petition after Registration.

¶35

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Sri Tilak Chetri v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tilak Chetri v. Union of India and 3 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

Monowar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Asma Khatun @ Asia Khatun Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Manik Dutta Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sukkur Ali and 7 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Anis Ali @ Anish Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sahidulla @ Md. Julhas Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.