Orissa High Court
A. Ganesh Raj vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 21 November, 2023
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 35166 of 2023
A. Ganesh Raj ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Adv. along with
Mr. A. Mishra, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
21.11.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing along
with Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P.
Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order
dated 15.12.2020 under Annexure-8 and to issue direction to the
opposite parties to reconsider the case of the petitioner as per the
order of this Court.
4. Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr.
A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that identical
matter has been decided by this Court in the case of Harendra Kumar
Pattnaik v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 5643. Therefore,
direction may be given to the opposite parties to reconsider the case
of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order.
5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-Opposite Parties vehemently contended that
the petitioner, being a fence sitter, the relief sought by him in terms
of the judgment of this Court in the case of Harendra Kumar
Pattnaik (supra), is not admissible, as the writ petition suffers from
delay and laches. Meaning thereby, the case of the petitioner was
dismissed on 15.12.2020 and he has approached this Court by filing
the present writ petition on 20.10.2023, i.e., after the judgment in the
case of Harendra Kumar Pattnaik (supra) was decided. It is further
contended that in Harendra Kumar Pattnaik (supra), rejection was
made on 10.11.2020 and he immediately rushed to this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No. 32467 of 2021, which was decided by this Court
on 14.09.2023. Therefore, the case of Harendra Kumar Pattnaik
(supra), cannot be equated with the case of the present petitioner and,
as such, the writ petition suffers from delay and laches.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, this Court finds that rejection of the petitioner's
application was made on 15.12.2020. Therefore, if the petitioner was
aggrieved by said order, he should have approached this Court
immediately. Admittedly, the present writ petition has been filed on
20.10.2023 after near about three years of rejection of the application
of the petitioner. As such, for delay in approaching this Court,
nothing has been pleaded in the application itself. Rather, it is
contended that the application of the petitioner was pending before
the Government since 2015 and the same was rejected after five
years, i.e., on 15.12.2020 and, therefore, the delay and laches which
have been caused can be attributable to the State authorities, but not
to the petitioner. But fact remains, even though the claim of the
petitioner was rejected on 15.12.2020, he approached this Court by
filing the present writ petition on 20.10.2023 and, as such, no reasons
have been assigned as to why delay has been caused in approaching
this Court. As such, in Harendra Kumar Pattnaik (supra), rejection
was made on 10.11.2020 and immediately he rushed to this Court in
the year 2021 and thereafter the judgment was passed on 14.09.2023.
Furthermore, in course of hearing, when this Court confronted said
fact to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as to
why after disposal of the case in Harendra Kumar Pattnaik (supra)
the petitioner approached this Court with a delay, the answer was not
in positive.
7. In the above view of the matter, since the petitioner is a fence
sitter and having approached this Court at a belated stage, without
explaining as to why he has approached this Court at the belated
stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, as the
same suffers from delay and laches.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Ashok
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 21-Nov-2023 16:20:35
