Allowed

The Union of India and 4 Ors. v. No 115330082 Ex Rt/Gd Mustaque Ahmed

Gauhati HC8 Dec 2025I.A.(Civil)/1744/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India sought condonation of 229 days' delay in filing a writ appeal against an order in a CRPF serviceman's writ petition. The court found inter-departmental processing sufficiently explained the delay, condoned it, allowed the application, and directed registration of the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs No 115330082… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010114952025

2025:GAU-

AS:17140-DB

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

¶6

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1744/2025

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001

¶8

2: THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶9

CHATTISGARH SECTOR CRPF RAIPUR 492001

¶10

3: THE COMMANDANT

¶11

174 BN. CRPF BILASHPUR CHHATISGARH 495001

¶12

4: THE COMMANDANT

¶13

GROUP CENTRE CRPF BILASHPUR CHHATISHGARH 495001

¶14

5: THE COMMANDANT

¶15

174 BN. CRPF DAYAPUR SILCHAR ASSAM 78803

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

NO 115330082 EX RT/GD MUSTAQUE AHMED

¶18

Page No.# 2/5

¶19

S/O HARUN ISLAM, VILL. SRIKONA, PART II, P.O. SRIKONA, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM 788026

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K MEDHI,

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. A K HANNAN,MR M J QUADIR

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 09.12.2025 (Shamima Jahan, J)

¶25

Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.Z. Quadir, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

¶26

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 229 days beyond the period of limitation in preferring the writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2024 passed in WP(C) 4606/2020.

¶27

In the said application, the applicant has narrated the grounds for condoning the delay from paragraph four onwards, wherein the applicants have stated that after the judgment and order was delivered on 25.07.2024, the certified copy was applied and was obtained on 30.07.2024 and thereafter, it was forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General (Law) Directorate, New Delhi for further action on 03.08.2024, who had requested for a legal opinion on 09.08.2024, and a legal opinion was furnished on 15.08.2024, and the same was also forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General (Law) Directorate, New

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

Delhi on 23.08.2024. However, thereafter, it seems that it took time in forwarding the same to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Kolkata for obtaining a final opinion for filing an appeal and the report that was received from there.

¶30

It is reflected that on 17.09.2024, the Deputy Inspector General (Law) Directorate, New Delhi vide signal directed the Ministry of Law and Justice, Kolkata for taking a decision of filing an appeal, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, Kolkata, vide U.O. dated 17.12.2024 opined that an appeal needs to be filed against the said impugned judgment and order and the said U.O. was sent to the Deputy Inspector General (Law) Directorate, New Delhi for approval, and a final decision was taken to file an appeal on 28^th of February 2025 and an appeal was prepared and was finally filed on 24.02.2025 causing a delay of 229 days.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondent had filed an affidavit-inopposition objecting to the condonation of delay, stating inter alia that the applicant had not explained two months' delay after the Deputy Inspector General (Law) Directorate, New Delhi vide signal had sent the communication to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Kolkata.

¶32

The learned counsel for the applicant has also argued on the merit of the case for condoning the delay. He had referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has made a distinction between inordinate unexplained delay and explained delay. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgment passed by this Court in I.A.(Civil) 1243/2017 by the Hon'ble Division Bench, in which the

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

Hon'ble Division Bench had condoned the delay of 397 days on the ground that the delay has been properly explained.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that there would be no distinction between a private party or a State or Union of India where the question of condoning delay is concerned and the same analogy be applied for and has further held that question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration and in the facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.

¶36

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the party seeking condonation has to explain the delay of 90 days by showing as to why the party was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. In the instant case, however, it is noticed that the Department had initially taken proper steps in sending the copy of the judgment to the Deputy Inspector General (Law) Directorate, New Delhi, as well as subsequent proceedings were done in time. However, later, when the opinion was sought for from the Ministry of Law and Justice, Kolkata, there was some delay. As such, it is seen that the said period of 30 days within which the Department has to explain the cause of delay as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the same has been done in the instant case. The only difference is that later there was some delay, which is inevitable since different departments are involved.

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

We are thus of the considered opinion that the grounds narrated by the applicant sufficiently explain the delay, and accordingly, the delay of 229 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation in filing the connected writ appeal is condoned.

¶39

Resultantly, the interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶40

The Registry shall register the appeal and list the same for admission.

¶41

JUDGE JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India and 4 Ors. v. No 115330082 Ex Rt/Gd Mustaque Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Union of India and 4 Ors. v. No 115330082 Ex Rt/Gd Mustaque Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milika Khatun Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Abdul Rahman Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Sohoruddin (Chahuruddin) Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Musstt. Khaimola Bibi Vs the Union of India and 9 Ors.

Asma Begum Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Musstt Khaimola Bibi Vs the Union of India and Ors.