STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. JIBAN CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application is filed by the appellant-petitioners for condoning the delay of 106 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 05-04-2011 passed in WP(C) 357 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge interfered with Clause 5 of the Memorandum dated 19-12-2002 and directed the appellant-petitioners to act upon the application made by the respondent No. 1 - who was the writ petitioner. Heard Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. GA for the Appellant-petitioners as well as Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2, (who was the proforma respondent in the writ petition) even after receipt of notice.

(2.) Ms. Lodh in support of the application for condonation of delay referred to Paragraph 2 (b) of the Additional Affidavit dated 7th December, 2011 filed by the appellant-petitioners wherein the reasons for delay have been properly explained. She further submits that by this time it is settled that day-to-day explanation is not necessary but only requirement is to assign sufficient cause for such delay. She further submits that the expression 'sufficient cause' must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delay in preferring the appeals is required to be condoned in the interest of justice and in the instant case if the application for condonation of delay is not accepted by this Court then that would be denial of justice to the State appellants particularly, when the learned single Judge in his judgment did not consider as to how the respondent No. 1-writ petitioner will petition is affected by the impugned memorandum and what right of him has been taken away by the appellant.

(3.) She also submits that the State being an impersonal machinery and no individual in the State machinery is being affected by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal and particularly, due to bureaucratic methodology and note making and file-pushing process, the delay is occasioned and the same is required to be condoned to protect the collective interest of the community as the State represents the collective interest of the community as a whole.