M/S Popu Enterprises v. M/S Khenewa Group and 4 Ors

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040015472023

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/192/2023 M/s Popu Enterprises having its registered Office at A Sector, Naharlagun, P.O and P.S Naharlagun, District Papum pare, Arunachal Pradesh, Pin 791110, represented by its Proprietor Shri Pawan Bagang, S/o Late Tayu Bagang, R/o Naharlagun, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh, Pin 791110, Mobile No. 9436048949

VERSUS M/s Khenewa Group and 4 Ors Having its Office at Waii Complex, Abotani Colony, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh 791110. Represented by its Proprietor Shri Rumak Jomoh, S/o Shri Sam Jomoh, near Rajdhani Petrol Pump, A Sector, Naharlagun, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh, PO/PS Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh. Mob. No. 9402915867 2:THE STATE OF AP Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary Women and Children Development Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh P.O and P.S Itanagar Pin 791111 3:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Women and Children Development Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh P.O and P.S Itanagar Pin 791111 4:The Joint Director Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/3 Women and Children Development Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh P.O and P.S Itanagar Pin 791111 5:The Chairperson Age: 0 Occupation : Tender Selection Committee C/o Director Women and Children Development Department Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh P.O and P.S Itanagar Pin 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Tad Johney Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

:: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

O R D E R

04.03.2024.

(N. U.K. Nair, J)

Heard the learned counsel Mr. S. Biswakarma appearing for the applicant.

¶2This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of 68 (sixty-eight) days of delay in preferring the present intra-court appeal against the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.255(AP)/2023.

¶3We have perused the contentions as raised in the application along Page No.# 3/3 with the objections as raised thereto by the learned counsel for the private respondent/writ petitioner.

¶4The explanations, as put-forth, appears to be satisfactory. The delay having been satisfactorily explained, we are of the view that the present application is required to be allowed by condoning the delay of sixty-eight days in preferring the connected writ appeal.

¶5Accordingly, the delay stands condoned. The present Interlocutory Application stands allowed.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant