JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

A virulent regressive and a potent attack with acid on the appellant/writ-petitioner had not only caused disfigurement of his face but more notably disfigurement of his soul which has further been compounded by the utter lack of sensitivity on the part of the State doling out a compensation which for a male victim in particular, does not even compensate a miniscule percentage of the trauma the appellant writ-petitioner had undergone and which is not likely to subside in the near future.

2. Before venturing out to consider the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2683 of 2018 the delay in filing the appeal has to be considered at the first instance. The application for condonation of delay has been filed through I.A. No. 11207 of 2025. There has been a delay of 1374 days in filing the appeal.

3. Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the purposes of condonation of delay refers to the term “sufficient cause” and the same would be a valid reason to condone the delay. The purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is intended to meet the reasons which must appear “sufficient” in the facts and circumstances of the case to satisfy the Court that the person concerned would not have taken recourse in preferring appeal even if he had wanted to during the prescribed period of limitation. The preference of an appeal/ application within the prescribed period of limitation is a regular routine procedure prescribed but at the same time it is necessary that this regular procedure is followed strictly in cases involving contractual claims for specific relief, setting aside of an exparte decree or regular civil or criminal appeals etc. in which consciousness and efforts of the appellant/applicant regarding limitation would be judged for “sufficient cause” stricto senso. According to Mrs. Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant the present appeal projects itself as an exceptional case wherein the appellant/ writ petitioner being an acid attack survivor had only two options; either to prefer an appeal within time and wait for financial aid or to undergo treatments and surgery first in the hope that the Courts are always open to protection of his fundamental rights. It has been submitted that an acid attack survivor is a victim for lifetime and an appeal preferred by such victim beyond the period of limitation should not be an impediment in his quest for redressal of his grievance. The appellant/writ petitioner was undergoing treatment and surgeries as he was subjected to an acid attack and has suffered 45% disability and is not leading a normal life which has been permanently affected. The limitation had expired on 04.01.2020 which was the peak period of Covid-19 and which was also one of the reasons for condonation of delay. Advancing her argument Mrs. Bhagat, learned counsel has submitted that the appellant has, as yet, undergone 14 plastic surgeries and he has also lost a major part of his eye-sight apart from the fact that he has no source of income and is facing a severe financial crunch. The parents of the appellant are old and ailing persons and they were not able to hire a lawyer and in fact, the appeal has been preferred through the High Court Legal Services Committee. Learned counsel has made further submission that the appellant is a law-abiding citizen and is nowhere at fault; moreover, he is the victim of the worse form of social crime in India. Therefore, protection of his person and life is his constitutional right and it is prayed and expected that the Court w