High Courts can grant compensation for State actions infringing the right to life, even outside custodial contexts.

1For filing the writ appeal against the judgment & order, dated 06-06-2012, as passed in WP (C) 296/2011, the delay of 146 (one hundred and forty six) days has occurred and for condoning such delay this miscellaneous application, under Chapter VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules, has been filed by the State - appellants.

2. Heard Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel, appearing for the State - appellants and Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. B. Debnath, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1.

3. In response to the notice, as issued by the order dated 25-01-2012, the respondents appeared and filed objection to the prayer for condonation of delay. Causes as assigned in this application for explaining the delay can be encapsulated as follows :
(a) The copy of the impugned judgment & order, dated 06-06-2011, was received on 09-06-2011. Thereafter, the Government Advocate sent his file to the office of the Director General of Police along with the note dated 13-06-2011. As per the Memorandum No. F.29(9) - FIN(G) / 2004, dated 18-04-2011, before taking any legal action the opinion of the Law Department and the Finance Department is required to be taken on the judgment. Accordingly, the file was moved to the Law Department on 20-06-2011.
(b) The Administrative Department placed the case file to the Government Advocate on 30-06-2011. Again the Government Advocate gave his note on 07-07-2011 for placing the case file to the Additional Government Advocate and accordingly, he marked the case file to the Nodal Officer of the Police Headquarters. The Police Headquarters placed the file to the Additional Government Advocate on 12-07-2011. Learned Additional Government Advocate suggested for engagement of the Advocate on record to prefer appeal on 25-7-2011. Thereafter, the file moved for engagement of the Advocate on record. Letter of engagement was issued on 02-08-2011 and thereafter, the file routed to the Police Headquarters on 05-08-2011. For preparation of Memo of appeal a clarification was sought by the said Advocate on 17-08-2011. The file reached to the Police Headquarter and finally, on 19-08-2011, the same was placed before the Advocate General.
(c) The Advocate General sought for further clarifications over the matter by his note dated 26-08-2011. The clarification was given by the note dated 29-08-2011 and on the next date, the case records were placed at the office of the Advocate General. Ultimately, the view of the Advocate General. was available on 09-09-2011 but as there was conflict of opinions between the Law Department and the learned Advocate General the case file again routed to the Law Department on 12-09-2011. The Law Department gave its view on 17-09-2011 and thereafter, the case file routed back to the Home Department.
(d) The Home Department placed the file to the Finance Department on 23-09-2011 whereas the Finance Department gave its view on 13-10-2011. The case file routed back to the Police Headquarter on 17-10-2011. Afterwards, the case file was again placed before the learned Advocate on record. At that time said Advocate was out of the city from 01-10-2011 to 30-10-2011 for enjoying the long vacation in the High Court. Accordingly, the memo of appeal was prepared on 14-11-2011. Thereafter, the draft of the memo of appeal along with the connected application was sent to the Government for filing the appeal after complying the necessary formalities. On vetting the drafts, on 26-11-2011, the affidavit was sworn on 12-12-2011 and in the course, delay of 146 days occurred.
In the o