Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 427 (GAU)

Diganta Kumar Das v. Union of India & 4 Ors.

2016-05-16

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ:-- 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2318 of 2015. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 3.9.2013 whereby the learned Single Judge of this High Court has dismissed applicant’s W.P.(C) No. 1256 of 2012. 3. In the writ petition, applicant had challenged the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 5 on the post of ‘Project Manager’ in Guwahati Biotech Park. The selection of Respondent No. 5 was made pursuant to advertisement dated 3.3.2010 and the applicant had also participated in the selection process. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties did not agree with the applicant and dismissed his writ petition on merits by a detailed order. 4. There is a huge delay of 777 days in filing the appeal. The record reveals that on the second day of passing of the order, the applicant applied for the certified copy which delivered to him on 6.9.2013 and, yet, the appeal was filed on 12.11.2015, i.e. after two years. 5. It is stated in the application that the wife of the applicant fell sick in the last part of April, 2014 and was discharged from the hospital on 3.6.2014. It is further stated that, thereafter, his sister-in-law fell sick and was discharged from hospital on 7.10.2014. According to the applicant, his wife again fell sick on 18.11.2014 and, then the elder brother of his counsel met with an accident at Karnataka. Some medical documents have also been filed in this regard. 6. The illness of the applicant’s wife, his sister-in-law and the elder brother of applicant’s counsel apparently do not make out a sufficient cause to condone such a huge delay. It is to be noted that the appeal is to be filed in the same High Court Building within thirty days. As stated above, the applicant had received the certified copy of the order dated 3.9.2013 on 6.9.2013 itself and his wife, according to him, had fallen sick in the last part of April, 2014. Therefore, nothing preventing him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The application is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the result, the appeal is also dismissed.