Samir Chandra Kar v. The Union of India and 8 Ors

ORDER Date : 29/02/2024 Vijay Bishnoi, CJ

Heard Mr. R. B. Phookan, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. We have also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC, appearing for the opposite parties/respondents. The matter comes upon for consideration of IA (C) No. 3106/2023 with a prayer for condoning the delay of 1033 days in filing the connected appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, the main reason given by the applicant is that though he retired from service on 30/06/2021 but soon thereafter, he left for his native village in Tripura and stayed there for sometime. It is averred that on account of lock-down and travel restriction in the country, he was unable to travel to Guwahati to meet his advocate and take further recourse against the impugned order. It is further averred that the other writ petitioners in the writ petition are natives of different parts of North Eastern Region and Jammu and Kashmir and a lot of time was consumed in seeking consensus of all the writ petitioners to challenge the impugned order. It is further averred that when no consensus had arisen between all the petitioners, the appellant decided to proceed with the further legal course on his own and thereafter, he arranged a meeting with his advocate in July, 2022 at Guwahati. However, the advocate requested the applicant to come after few weeks and ultimately in October, 2022, precisely on 07/10/2022, he had a meeting with the advocate. However, dissatisfied with the said advocate, the appellant wanted to engage another advocate for consultation and take all the legal recourse against the impugned order and ultimately, towards the end of December, 2022, he was informed about the present set of counsels but at that time, due to ensuing winter and Bihu vacations, the applicant could not get an Page No.# 4/4 appointment towards the end of January, 2023 and unable to meet his advocate. In the second week of February, 2023, he could meet his advocate and thereafter, the brief was prepared and presented before this Court in September, 2023. Having gone through the contents of the application and after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to explain the huge delay of 1033 days in filing the connected writ appeal satisfactorily. Vague assertions have been made in the application without there being any details. Hence, no case for condonation of delay is made out. Otherwise also, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is also not liable to be interfered with as the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs, Ram Gopal Agarwal reported in (1998) 2 SCC 589, has non-suited the applicant. The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the decision of the single bench of the Meghalaya High Court as well as the decision of the Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal also. Hence, the IA(C) No. 3106/2023 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected writ appeal is also liable to be dismissed for being devoid of any force and the same is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

sukhamay Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010229542023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Civil)/3106/2023o SAMIRoCHANDRAoKARo S/OoLATEoUMESHoCHANDRAoKAR,o R/OoT5,oBoBLOCK,oRAYHANoRESIDENCY,oBELTOLA,oPIN-o781028. VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo8oORS.o REP.oBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoINDIA,oMINISTRYoOFoHOMEo AFFAIRS,oNORTHoBLOCK,oNEWoDELHI,oPIN-o110001. 2:6THoCENTRALoPAYoCOMMISSION o2NDoFLOOR ICARDoBUILDING oPLOToNO.o6 oVASANToKUNGoINSTITUTIONALoAREA oPHASE-II oNEWoDELHI-110070. 3:HEoDIRECTORoOFo(POLICEoFINANCE) oMINISTRYoOFoHOMEoAFFAIRS oPOLICEoFINANCEoWING oNORTHoBLOCK oNEWoDELHI oPIN-110001. 4:THEoDIRECTORoGENERALoASSAMoRIFLES oMAHANIDESHALAYAo(THEoDIRECTORATEoGENERALoASSAMoRIFLES)o SHILLONG oMEGHALAYA-o793011. 5:THEoDY.oINSPECTORoGENERALoASSAMoRIFLESo(DIGAR)o25oSECTOR Page No.# 2/4 THE ASSAM RIFLES LEKHAPANI TINSUKIA ASSAM C/O 99 APO. 6:THE COMMANDANT 3RD BATTALION THE ASSAM RIFLES CHARIDUAR SONITPUR ASSAM C/O 99 APO PIN-932003. 7:THE COMMANDANT 44TH BATTALION THE ASSAM RIFLES LOKHRA SONITPUR ASSAM C/O 99 APO PIN- 932044. 8:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES (NORTH) (DIGAR) 10TH SECTOR THE ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99 APO. 9:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES (SOUTH) (IGAR) THE ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99 APO Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R B PHOOKAN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I. Linked Case : SAMIR CHANDRA KAR VERSUS Page No.# 3/4 THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS. ------------ Advocate for : R SARMAH Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM