Facts of the Case

The Union of India and its departmental authorities filed an Interlocutory Application seeking extension of time to comply with the directions issued by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 3878/2021, which had been disposed of by order dated 02.09.2021.

The earlier order had granted six weeks' time to the authorities for compliance. Subsequently, the applicants sought an extension of two additional months for carrying out the directions of the Court.

However, the application for extension itself was filed only on 04.01.2022, which was after the expiry of both the original six-week period and the additional period for which extension was sought.

Further, the matter came up for hearing only on 24.08.2022.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Court should grant an extension of time for compliance after the expiry of both the original period and the extended period sought.
  2. Whether an application seeking extension survives when the period requested has already lapsed before its consideration by the Court.

Petitioners' Arguments

The Union of India and other departmental authorities submitted that:

  • Additional time was required to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 02.09.2021.
  • The applicants requested an extension of two months to complete compliance with the Court's earlier directions.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent/writ petitioner was represented during the proceedings.

From the order, no detailed submissions on behalf of the respondent have been recorded.

Court Order / Findings

The Gauhati High Court observed that:

  • The original order had granted six weeks for compliance.
  • The application seeking extension was filed only after expiry of the original compliance period.
  • Even the two-month extension sought had already expired by the time the application was listed for hearing.
  • As the period for which extension was sought had itself elapsed, the application had lost its practical utility.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Interlocutory Application had become infructuous and dismissed the same.

Important Clarification

The Court did not examine the merits of the compliance or the earlier writ petition.

The dismissal was solely on the ground that the application for extension had become infructuous because:

  • the prescribed compliance period had expired,
  • the requested extension period had also expired, and
  • no effective relief could be granted at the time of hearing.

The order reiterates that applications seeking extension of time should be filed and considered within the relevant period to avoid becoming infructuous.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Original Writ Proceedings)
  • Principles governing extension of time granted by the High Court
  • Procedural law relating to Interlocutory Applications

 Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785569819_2541compressed.pdf
Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.