Orissa High Court
The Special L.A.R. & R.O vs Nrusingha Charan Padhan on 22 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.A.A No.40 of 2016
The Special L.A.R. & R.O, .... Appellant
R.I.P, Angul
Ms. S. Devi, Adv.
-versus-
Nrusingha Charan Padhan .... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
22.11.2024
Misc. Case No.117 of 2016
Order No.
02. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Though this Misc. Case has been filed for grant of two
months' time to pay the deficit court fee, as per the Office
Note, the deficit court fee has already been paid in the
meantime.
3. Accordingly, this Misc. Case stands disposed of
extending the time till deposit of the court fee.
(S. K. Mishra)
Judge
L.A.A No.40 of 2016 &
Order No.
03. 1. This Misc. Case has been filed for condonation of
delay of 1587 days, as pointed out by the office. On perusal
of the application, it is found that the reason to explain the
delay is neither convincing nor the delay has been properly
explained.
2. That apart, on perusal of Appeal, it is found that the
Appeal is valued at Rs.7,500/- and an amount court fee of
Rs.884.25P is payable. The differential enhanced amount,
though a meager amount, this Appeal has been preferred
after a long delay of 1587 days .That apart, after filing of
memorandum of Appeal in the year 2016, the State-
Appellant did not pursue the Appeal till date for
consideration of its application for condonation of delay.
The Appeal has been listed today suo motu for orders.
3. The Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post
Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. &
Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, 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."
4. Also, in view of the judgment 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 State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal, reported
in 2020 SCC Online SC 849, this Court is not inclined to
issue notice on the question of limitation.
5. Accordingly, the Misc. Case stands dismissed. As a
consequence thereof, the Appeal also stands dismissed.
6. The Office is directed communicate a copy of this
order to the Court below so also the private Respondent.
Kanhu
(S. K. Mishra)
Judge
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 22-Nov-2024 18:50:28
