Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Another vs Ajaya Kumar Sarangi & on 28 June, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.401 of 2018
State of Odisha & Another .... Appellants
Mr. S.K. Samal, Advocate
-versus-
Ajaya Kumar Sarangi & .... Respondents
Anothers Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
28.06.2024
Order No
03. I.A No.601 of 2018
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. This Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of
2704 days in filing the appeal in question. The present appeal has
been filed challenging the judgment dtd.23.09.2010 passed by the
learned State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A
Case No.60 of 2008. It is contended that even though the impugned
order was passed by the Tribunal on 23.09.2010, but the certified
copy of the impugned judgment was received in the Office of
Appellant No.1 on 21.07.2014. After receipt of the order vide letter
dtd.06.08.2014, Appellant No.2 was requested to examine the
eligibility of the private respondent to get the benefit of the order.
Since in the meantime basing on the order passed by the Tribunal in
Execution Case No.146 of 2012 so filed by the private Respondents
for implementation of the order, Appellant No.1 received notice in
// 2 //
the Execution Case, Director Higher Education was requested vide
letter dtd.16.02.2018 to furnish the appropriate memorandum.
However, due to misplacement of the file for the period from
09.02.2014 to 01.02.2018, no step could be taken to challenge the
order in question. But Appellant No.1 on 29.03.2018 while
processing the file recommended for filing of an appeal against the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 23.09.2010 in GIA Case
No.60 of 2018.
3.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the stand taken in
Para-2 of the application delay in filing of the appeal is required to
be condoned and such delay is neither intentional and rather bona
fide one.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the private Respondent contended
that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained
by showing sufficient cause and in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs.
Living Media Ltd. & Anr. ((2012) 3 SCC 563) and the decision of
this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer,
Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021), the delay is not required
to be condoned.
4.1. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 27 and 29 of the Judgment in the
case of Postmaster General & Ors. has held as follows:-
"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
// 3 //
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."
4.2. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors 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.)
(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)"
4.3. It is also contended that similar plea taken by the appellants
with regard to condonation of delay was not entertained by this
// 4 //
Court and similar application was dismissed vide judgment
dtd.20.02.2024 so passed in FAO No.698 of 2018.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra) and the judgment
rendered by this Court, this Court does not find any sufficient cause
pleaded by the respondents for condoning the delay in question.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing
the appeal and dismiss the I.A accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Sine this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the
appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
