Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Anr vs Jaya Krushna Barik & Ors on 20 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.418 of 2008
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Appellants
Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
-versus-
Jaya Krushna Barik & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
(Respondent No. 1)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.04.2023
Order No
06. Misc. Case No.699 of 2008
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing
for the Appellants and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for
the Respondents.
3. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 5
years 175 days in filing the appeal. Learned AGA contended that
the delay has been properly explained and the delay is due to
procedural latches and not bonafide one.
4. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 27 and 29 of the Judgment in the
case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr.
((2012) 3 SCC 563) has held as follows:-
// 2 //
<27. 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.
29. 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 bona fide 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 the
government departments. The law shelters everyone under
the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a
few.=
4.1. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. Vs.
Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021) in
Para-5 has held as follows:-
<5. The Supreme Court has recently in a series of matters
reiterated that the explanation usually offered by the State
and its entities for the delay on account of administrative
exigencies should not be accepted unless they are shown to
be justified. A sampling of such orders is as under:
(i) Order dated 13th January 2021 in SLP No.17559
of 2020 (State of Gujarat v. Tushar Jagdish
Chandra Vyas & Anr.)
(ii) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP
No.11989 of 2020 (The Commissioner of Public
Instruction & Ors. v. Shamshuddin)
(iii) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP
No.25743 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
v. Sabha Narain & Ors.)
// 3 //
(iv) Order dated 4th February 2021 in SLP
No.19846 of 2020 (Union of India v. Central
Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors)
(v) Order dated 11th January 2021 in SLP No.22605
of 2020 (The State of Odisha & Ors v. Sunanda
Mahakuda)=
5. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1
contended that the order impugned has been implemented in the
meantime and Respondent No. 1 is in receipt of the Grant-in-aid in
terms of the order passed by the Tribunal.
6. However, this Court taking into account the fact that no
justifiable ground has been raised for condoning the delay in
question and the fact that the order has been implemented, placing
reliance on the decisions as cited supra, is not inclined to condone
the delay in filing the appeal.
7. Accordingly, Misc. Case is rejected.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
07. FAO No.418 of 2008
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the
appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha
