Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Duryodhan Sahoo And Others on 10 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.32 of 2010
State of Orissa, represented by ..... Appellant
the Special Land Acquisition
officer, Daitari-Banspani Rail
Link, Keonjhar
Mr. B. Panigrahi, Advocate
Vs.
Duryodhan Sahoo and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
10.11.2023
Misc. Case No.99 of 2010 and LAA No.32 of 2010
Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
06.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is present.
3. Pursuant to Order dated 05.09.2022, notices were sent to the
Respondent Nos.6 to 8 afresh. There is a noting, A.D. showing
service of notice on Respondent No.6 has returned after valid
service. The said Respondent goes unrepresented. Similarly, so far
as Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are concerned, the notices sent to the
said Respondents have returned unserved with postal remark "Not
Know" and "Insufficient address", respectively.
4. Mr. Panigrahi, learned ASC for the Appellant submits, the
addresses of the said Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have been reflected
in the cause title of the Appeal Memo as per the information
available in the cause title of the impugned judgment and the said
Respondents are daughters of late Satrughan Sahoo, whereas
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the sons and Respondent No.6 is the
daughter of late Satrughan Sahoo, on whom notices with regard to
limitation have been duly served.
5. It is ascertained from record that notices earlier sent to the
said Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were returned unserved with a
noting "Left India".
6. Mr. Panigrahi, learned ASC for the Appellant submits,
present whereabouts of Respondent Nos. 7 & 8, who are the
daughters of late Satrughan Sahoo, could not be ascertained as
they are staying abroad and they have not disclosed their present
address before the concerned postal authority before or after
leaving India.
7. From the record, it is found that there is a delay of 776 days
in preferring this Appeal. Though the present Misc. Case has been
filed for condonation of delay, from the pleadings made there in, it
is ascertained that the reason assigned there in for the delay is not
convincing. Further, the delay of 776 days in preferring the
Appeal has not been properly explained.
8. The apex Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General
(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."
9. Also, in view of the 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.
10. Hence, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay.
Accordingly, the Misc. Case stands dismissed. As a consequence
thereto, this Appeal also stands dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.
11. Though notices on limitation on Respondent Nos. 7 and 8
returned unserved served because of the reason indicated above, in
view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1989 SC
630 so also reasons indicated above, the same can be held to be
valid service. Further, as the application for condonation of delay
as well as appeal memo stand dismissed by this order, they will no
way be prejudiced for passing this order in their absence.
12. Since none of the Respondents have rendered appearance in
this case, the Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the
Referral Court so also the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 enabling them
to take necessary steps for implementation of the impugned
Award/Judgment.
padma
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 14-Nov-2023 19:07:11
