Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 215 (GAU)

STATE OF ASSAM v. PRAMATHESH SARMA

2014-02-21

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam. This appeal is filed under Rule 2(2) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules by the respondents of W.P.(C) No.4728 of 2011 against the order dated 21.02.2012 passed in the aforesaid writ petition by the learned Single Judge. Heard on Misc. Case No.484 of 2014. This is an application filed by the applicants/appellants (State) under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning of delay in filing appeal. According to the appellants, the delay in filing appeal is of 637 days. The question therefore, that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal or not? Notice of this application was served on the respondents. In our opinion, the delay of 637 days is totally unexplained. It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be condoned for want of any sufficient cause, which is required to be made out under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, when the Act has given 60 days to file an appeal then there is absolutely no reason as to why the appellants waited for 637 days to file an appeal. Thirdly, the appellants are not rustic villagers, who are usually not conversant with the legal intricacies of limitation prescribed under the Law of Limitation. On the other hand, the appellants being State is always advised by the office of Advocate General on day today basis in the matter of filing cases in Courts. In our view, the usual ground that administrative sanction was not granted due to which, delay in filing appeals was caused, does not appear to us to be bonafide cause, because, no department would take 637 days to decide as to whether appeal should be filed or not against an order of Single Judge. That apart, neither proper facts are pleaded nor any documents are filed in support of such allegations, except usual averments. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application i.e. Misc. Case No.484 of 2014 is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal too is dismissed as being barred by time. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application i.e. Misc. Case No.484 of 2014 is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal too is dismissed as being barred by time. Since the appeal is being dismissed as barred by time, hence, it is not necessary for us to examine the controversy involved in appeal on merits. Even then, we perused the impugned order with a view to find out as to whether any case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners and directed to grant relief to them, which they had claimed in the writ petition. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: - “Mr. P. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, drawing attention to the impugned advertisement, Annexure-I to this writ petition, submits that in clause 1 and 6 of that advertisement it has been provided that applicant must be a resident within the jurisdiction of the Kamrup (Rural) District, Assam and he must be registered person within the jurisdiction of Kamrup (Rural) District of the employment exchanges of Assam. He further submits that the provision is absolutely arbitrary and opposite to the principles as enunciated under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In response to such allegation in para-7 of the affidavit in opposition as filed by the respondent No.2, it has been stated that “It is pertinent to mention that the condition No.II, viz, “the applicant must be a resident of within the jurisdiction of Kamrup (Rural) District (Assam)” was incorporated in order to avoid the prevailing trend of opposing appointment of non-local candidate and also to minimize huge application against a single post.” These reasons are not only whimsical but absolutely capricious in nature. In view of this, the advertisement as a whole as appearing in Annexure-I is struck down. However, the respondents are at liberty to publish an employment notice without incorporating such clause as has given rise to the filing of this writ petition. In view of this, the advertisement as a whole as appearing in Annexure-I is struck down. However, the respondents are at liberty to publish an employment notice without incorporating such clause as has given rise to the filing of this writ petition. With this observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.” We have perused the impugned order with a view to find out as to whether any case is made out for admission of this appeal on merits and having gone through the impugned order we find no case to interfere in the impugned order quoted above. Since we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single judge that a very short controversy involved, we do not wish to add any more reasoning than the one given by learned Single Judge. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we find no merit in the appeal which fails and is dismissed not only on the ground of limitation but also on merits in limini. No costs.