STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. ANIL CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these miscellaneous applications for condoning the delay along with the connected writ appeals are tied up together for the reason that common questions of fact and law are involved in all these matters, even though there are some factual variations as to the days of delay. For appreciation, the days of delay against each miscellaneous application for condonation of delay are shown in a tabular form hereunder :

(2.) In all these miscellaneous applications notices were issued. Either notices were properly served on the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petitioners') or since the registered letters were tendered on 01.02.2012, the notices be deemed to have been duly served on the writ petitioner in view of the proviso to Rule 9(5) of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The State appellants-petitioners have stated in all the miscellaneous applications that the cause of justice would be defeated unless the delay be condoned by this court. It is well settled that when an inordinate delay takes place such delay may on assigning the sufficient cause be condoned by the court if the cause of substantive justice is demonstrated. Explanation for the delay as provided by the State appellants-petitioners is for pushing of the files from one Officer to another Officer for a long period in a short circuit. The State appellants-petitioners ritualistically contended that the State being an impersonal machinery this court may accept the explanations for substantive ends of justice as attached to the Writ Appeals. In view of this, this court considers that it would be proper to examine, for purpose of condoning the long delay, whether the writ appeals as filed by the State appellants involve elements of substantive justice or not.