Horizon Marketing and Anr v. The State of Assam and 9 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010207622023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Civil)/2909/2023o HORIZONoMARKETINGoANDoANR.o AoPROPRIETORSHIPoFIRMoHAVINGoITSoOFFICEoANDoPRINCIPALoPLACEoOFo BUSINESSoAToR.GoBARUAHoROAD,oSUNDARPUR,oJAPORIGOG,oGUWAHATIo 5,oREPRESENTEDoBYoITSoPROPRIETORoSHRIoASHOKoAGARWAL 2:oSHRIoASHOKoAGARWAL oS/OoLATEoISHWARLALoAGARWAL o oRESIDENToOFoR.GoBARUAHoROAD oSUNDARPUR oJAPORIGOG oGUWAHATIo5 PROPRIETORoOFoPET.oNO.o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo9oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoITSoSECRETARY,oWATERoRESOURCEoDEPARTMENT,o GOVT.oOFoASSAM,DISPURoGUWAHATIo06 2:THEoCHIEFoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM oDISPUR oGUWAHATIo06 3:THEoADDITIONALoCHIEFoSECRETARY oGOVT.oOFoASSAM oREVENUEoANDoDISASTERoMANAGEMENTo(G)oDEPARTMENT oCHANDMARI oGUWAHATIo03 4:THEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARY oGOVT.oOFoASSAM oREVENUEoANDoDISASTERoMANAGEMENTo(G)oDEPARTMENT Page No.# 2/4 CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 5:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 7:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER LOWER ASSAM ZONE WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 8:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MUKALMUA PROTECTION WATER RESOURCE CIRCLE MUKALMUA DIST BARPETA ASSAM 9:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BARPETA WATER RESOURCE DIVISION BARPETA 10:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

Page No.# 3/4

:: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

31.05.2024

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. C. Sarma, learned counsel representing Respondent Nos.1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Mrs. B.D. Barman, learned counsel appears for Respondent Nos.2 and 10. Today, none has appeared for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of 50 days of delay in preferring the connected MAC Appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sarma has already filed an objection. The primary ground taken for delay is that the applicant No.2 Ashok Agarwal was suffering from liver cirrhosis and he was under medical treatment. Several medical documents are submitted in order to prove the aforesaid ground. Mr. Sarma has submitted that though the applicant no.2 himself was suffering from liver cirrhosis, his lawyer could have taken necessary steps. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. I find that the delay has been properly and satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the delay stands condoned. The connected MAC Appeal shall be registered and listed for Admission hearing. Page No.# 4/4 The Interlocutory Application is disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant