Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Duryodhan Swain on 26 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.A.A No. 100 of 2009
State of Orissa & Anr. ..... Appellants
Mr. G. Rout, ASC
Vs.
Duryodhan Swain ..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
26.10.2022
Misc. Case No.105 of 2013 & L.A.A. No.100 of 2009
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
10.
2. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
22.01.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Athgarh, in L.A. Case No.83 of 2005 on 20.10.2009.
3. As it seems from record, till 17.07.2013, no step had been
taken by the State-Appellant for condonation of delay on which date
Misc. Case No.105 of 2013 was filed under Section-5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
4. As per the office note, there is a delay of 542 days in filing
the present Appeal. The reasons indicated in the Misc. Case for
delay in preferring the Appeal are not convincing and that apart, the
delay has not been properly explained.
5. 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."
6. 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 Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
7. Accordingly, Misc. Case as well as Appeal preferred under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stand dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches.
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Banita
