Aroti Basfore and 5 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 9 Ors.

1. Heard Mr. A.Z.Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. D.P.Borah, learned Standing counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department for the opposite parties/respondents.

¶42

2. The present Interlocutory Application is filed seeking condonation of the delay of 303 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the common judgment and order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 661/2020 & other connected cases.

¶43

3. The ground of delay is explained in paragraph No. 2 of the instant application.

¶44

4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, contends that it is evident from the paragraph No. 2 that the delay in filing

¶45

the connected appeal was occurred beyond their control. It is further contended that there was no deliberate and/or intentional lapse on the

¶46

Page No.# 4/5

¶47

part of the applicants/appellants in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation; a liberal approach may be adopted while condoning the delay, and this Court may not take too strict and pedantic stand which may result in injustice.

¶48

5. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties have vehemently objected to such prayer of condonation of delay.

¶49

It is specifically pleaded that there are no sufficient ground to condone such delay inasmuch as, the applicants/appellants are nothing but fencesitter and such application cannot be entertained after remaining silent and awaiting the litigation initiated by others.

¶50

6. Perusal of the pleadings discloses that the impugned judgment & order was delivered on 28.02.2025 and the present appeal was preferred after 303 days from the aforesaid judgment and order. The applicants/appellants were discontinued from their contractual service on 31.03.2021.

¶51

7. The only ground pleaded is that since 31.03.2021 when their services were discontinued, they had gone to the State of Kerala in search of their livelihood and lost the contact with their engaged counsel.

¶52

8. By now, the law is well settled that the law of limitation is substantive in nature and the limitation periods cannot be extended on mere equitable

¶53

Page No.# 5/5

¶54

consideration; the applicants/appellants must demonstrate reasonable, satisfactory and acceptable cause of delay. Though an inordinate delay, by itself, is not a bar to exercise its discretion; however, in the given facts of the present case, the explanation is vague, general and not sufficient. Therefore, we refuse to condone such delay.

¶55

9. They woke up from their slumber when some similarly situated

¶56

persons were granted relief by this Court in WA Nos. 211/2025, 6/2026 & 7/2026.

¶57

10. We are in total agreement with the learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties and we are of the opinion that the applicants/appellants have failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 303 days in preferring the connected appeal.

¶58

11. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed.

¶59

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶60

Comparing Assistant

Aroti Basfore and 5 Ors. v. the Union of India and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aroti Basfore and 5 Ors. v. the Union of India and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Food Corporation of India and 3 Ors. Vs Jayanta Mohan Singha

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Sri Jagannath Datta

Suraj Naiding and 3 Ors. Vs the N. C. Hills Autonomous Council and 5 Ors.

Ghoshito Yeptho and 6 Ors. Vs the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and 4 Ors.

Uco Bank and Anr. Vs Sumit Sattawan

The Union of India Vs Alaka Kalita Talukdar