Gauhati High Court - Itanagar
Lishi Aye vs The State Of Ap And 3 Ors on 20 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC040000562026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(C)/20/2026
Lishi Aye
Son of Shri Lishi Tado, Village Neelam, PO Deed, Keyi Panyor District, Aruanachal
Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP and 3 Ors
represented by the Secretary, Land Management, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh.791111
2:The Deputy Commissioner
Age: 0
Occupation :
Lower Subansiri District
Ziro
Arunachal Pradesh 791120
3:The Union of India
Age: 0
Occupation :
represented by the Secretary
Ministry of Road Transport and Highway
Govt of India
Transport Bhawan
No.1
Parliament Street
New Delhi 11001
4:The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
Age: 0
Occupation :
represented by the Managing Director
3rd Floor
PTI Building
4 Parliament Street
Page No.# 2/3
New Delhi 11000
Advocate for the Petitioner : Subu Koyang,
Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC(Highway),DSGI,Rintu Saikia,Marto Kato
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 20.01.2026 (Marli, V. J) Heard Mr. S. Koyang, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, who has filed the instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 19 days in preferring the appeal against the Judgement and order dated 19.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No.30(AP)/2024.
2. Issue notice to the respondents.
3. Since, Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 3, Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.4 and Mr. N. Sora, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI representing the respondent No.5, no need to issue formal notice.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal against the said Judgment and order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Page No.# 3/3 No.30(AP)/2024 was not due to any laches and negligence on the part of the applicants/appellants but was due to the time taken for obtaining a certified true copy of the impugned Judgment and order and time taken for preparation of the appeal and getting the signatures of the appellants.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that they have no objection to the condonation of delay of 19 days.
6. In view of the above submissions, we find it appropriate to condone the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal against the Judgement and order dated 19.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No.30(AP)/2024, being satisfied with the explanation given by the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants.
7. Accordingly, IA(C) No.20(AP)/2026 stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant