Orissa High Court
Angul Sukinda Railway Limited vs Dhruba Dehury & Others on 22 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.84 of 2019
Angul Sukinda Railway Limited .... Appellant
Mr. S.K. Dash and
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
Dhruba Dehury & others .... Respondents
None
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
22.08.2022
Order I.A. No.161 of 2019
No.
3. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Though this I.A. has been filed under Section 149 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 for time to pay the Deficit Court Fee, but in the
meantime, Deficit Court Fee has been by the Appellant-Company.
3. The Deficit Court Fee paid late be accepted.
4. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
I.A. No. 162 of 2019 and LAA No.84 of 2019
04. 1. Heard.
2. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
07.12.2016, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Kamakhyanagar in L.A. Misc. Case No.68 of 2015 on 14.10.2019. As
per office note, there is a delay of 587 days in filing the present
Appeal. Though this I.A. has been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal,
but the reasons indicated in the said I.A. are not convincing and it
seems, the delay has not been properly explained.
3. The apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master
General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in
(2012) 3 SCC 563 observed as under:
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s)
concerned were well aware or conversant with the
issues involved including the prescribed period of
limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing
a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot
claim that they have a separate period of limitation
when the Department was possessed with
competent persons familiar with court
proceedings. In the absence of plausible and
acceptable explanation, we are posing a question
why the delay is to be condoned mechanically
merely because the Government or a wing of the
Government is a party before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in a
matter of condonation of delay when there was no
gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of
bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice, we are of the view that
in the facts and circumstances, the Department
cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions.
The claim on account of impersonal machinery
and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making
several notes cannot be accepted in view of the
modern technologies being used and available. The
law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody
including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable
and acceptable explanation for the delay and there
was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the
usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of
procedural red tape in the process. The
government departments are under a special
obligation to ensure that they perform their duties
with diligence and commitment. Condonation of
delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for government departments.
The law shelters everyone under the same light
and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
Considering the fact that there was no proper
explanation offered by the Department for the
delay except mentioning of various dates,
according to us, the Department has miserably
failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons
sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed
on the ground of delay."
.4. Also, in view of the recent judgment/order of this Court in the
case of State of Odisha Vrs. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C)
No.15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), which has been passed
relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State
of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal, reported in 2020 SCC Online
SC 849, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the Respondents
on the question of limitation in the present I.A.
5. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed, so also the Appeal
preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
PADMA
