Orissa High Court
Director vs Ganesh Ch. Behera And Others on 11 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No. 113 of 2019
Director, Interim Test Range, ..... Appellant
Chandipur
Mr. B. Maharana, CGC
Vs.
Ganesh Ch. Behera and others ..... Respondents
Mr. K.K. Rath, Advocate
(for O.P. No.1)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
11.01.2023
I.A. No.243 of 2022 and LAA No.113 of 2019
Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
04.
2. As pointed out by the office, there is a delay of 2280 days in
filing the present Appeal.
3. Mr. Maharana, learned CGC submits that though actually
there is a delay of 442 days in filing the present Appeal, because
of late deposit of deficit Court Fee on 11.11.2022, the Stamp
Reporter has pointed out that there is a delay of 2280 days and the
delay should be condoned as same is neither deliberate nor
intentional on the part of the Appellant. Rather, because of
resorting to certain official/consultative processes in obtaining the
approval of the Government, so also due to misplace of concerned
record, inadvertently a delay was caused in preferring the present
Appeal.
4. Though copy of the I.A. is yet to be served on the learned
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but Mr. Rath,
vehemently opposes to the prayer for condonation of delay and
submits that in terms of judgments of this Court, so also the Apex
Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs.
Living Media India Ltd. & Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC
563, the application for condonation, so also Memorandum of
Appeal deserve to be dismissed. When the matter was listed on
22.12.2022, Mr. Rath, referring to the judgment passed by
coordinate Bench in LAA No.11 of 2020, also opposed to
admission of the present Appeal, so also condonation of delay.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order dated 22.12.2022 are reproduced
below for ready reference.
"5. He further submits that an identical Appeal
pertaining to the present Appellant has already been
dismissed by coordinate Bench and after dismissal of the
Appeal the impugned judgment has already been
implemented by the present Appellant. To substantiate his
submission, he files copy of the Order dated 01.12.2021,
passed in case of Director, Interim Test Range,
Chandipur v. Ashok Senapati and others in L.A.A.
No.11 of 2020 after serving copy of the same on Mr.
Moharana, which be kept on record.
6. Mr. Moharana prays for some time to examine the
said Order passed by the coordinate Bench and to have his
say in the said regard."
5. Mr. Maharana, learned CGC, on whom a copy of the said
judgment was served by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submits that though the land in question
in LAA No.11 of 2020 belongs to same Mouza and is of same
Kissam, but the location of the land is one of the decisive factor
for determining/enhancing the compensation amount.
6. From the pleadings made in the I.A. the reasons assigned
for condonation of delay seems to be not convincing.
7. The apex Court in case of Office of the Chief Post Master
General & Others (supra) 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."
8. 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 84, submission made by the learned Counsel for
the Parties and the reasons assigned above, this Court is not
inclined to condone the delay.
9. Accordingly, the I.A. as well as the Appeal stand dismissed.
(S.K. MISHRA)
Padma
JUDGE
