WP(C) 5101/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE. B.D. AGARWAL This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.9.2011 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati in Appeal No. 63(E)/10. By this impugned ju dgment, the Revenue Board has remanded the case to the Advisory Board for settli ng No.4 Bihpuria C.S. Shop. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Sr. counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard M r. PKR Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Ms. S. Seal, le arned counsel for the respondent No.1 i.e., Excise Department. The impugned judgment has been assailed basically on the ground that alt hough the appeal was time barred, the Revenue Board has condoned the delay witho ut there being any separate petition for the same, explaining the delay. Under Rule 339 of the A.E. Rules,1945 an appeal against an order of District Col lector to the Assam Board of Revenue may be filed within a period of one month. Under Rule 340 the period taken for obtaining the copy of the order shall be exc luded from the calculation of the period of one month. In this way, there is no statutory requirement of filing separate application. It is for the appellate authority t o ascertain whether the delay was reasonable and justified one. In the present case, there was allegedly ten days delay. Even during th is period, some time must have been taken to obtain the certified copy of the order of the Collector. Needless to mention herein that the established principle of law is that ordinarily meri torious appeals should not be dismissed on technical ground, like delay in fili ng the appeal. Be that as it may, the discretion exercised by the Board need not be interfered with by the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India. With regard to the merit of the impugned judgment, the admitted position is that the matter was remanded to the Advisory Board to re-consider the settlement of No.4 Bihpuria C.S. Shop. During the course of hearing, Mr. PKR Choudhury submitted that in the me anwhile the Collector has already settled the aforesaid shop with the respondent No.4 on 23.9.2011. Pursuant to the aforesaid submission, the writ petitioner ha s already handed over the charge on 26.9.2011. Copy of the settlement order an d the charge handing over certificate has been annexed with the Misc. case No. 3 124/11. In view of the aforesaid development, I am not inclined to interfere wit h the judgment of Board of Revenue. If the writ petitioner is aggrieve d by the settlement order dated 23.9.2011, he may challenge the same before the appropria te authority. With the aforesaid findings, the writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order passed on 28.9.2011 stands vacated.