Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & vs Dinabandhu Das & on 22 November, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.514 of 2020
State of Odisha & .... Appellants
Another
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
-versus-
Dinabandhu Das &
Another .... Respondents
Mr.S.N. Sharma, Adv. for
Resp. No.1
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
22.11.2024
Order No. I.A. No.378 of 2020
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Perused the office note. Since notice has been duly
served on Respondent No.2, notice against the said
Respondent is treated as sufficient.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
4. This I.A. has been filed with a prayer to condone the
delay of around 773 days.
4.1. In support of the condonation of delay, learned
counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal
originally disposed of the matter in GIA Case No.38 of 2014
vide judgment dtd.01.02.2018. After receipt of the said
order, the matter was examined at different level and
ultimately it was decided to file a Review against the order
and such a decision was taken on 13.11.2019. Basing on
// 2 //
the said decision, a Review Petition was filed on 13.12.2019
vide Review Petition No.5 of 2019. The said Review Petition
was dismissed on 21.01.2020.
4.2. It is contended that after dismissal of the Review
Petition, the present appeal was filed against the original
order on 15.05.2020.
4.3. It is accordingly contended that since against the
original order, a Review Petition was filed and the same was
dismissed only on 21.01.2020, no delay is there in filing of
the present appeal. It is accordingly contended that the
delay in filing of the appeal is required to be condoned.
5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that against
original order passed by the Tribunal on 01.02.2018,
knowing fully well that there is no such provision to file any
application for Review, a decision was taken to file the
review on 13.11.2019 i.e. more than one year and nine
months of the original order.
5.1. It is also contended that after dismissal of the Review
Petition vide order dtd.21.01.2020, the present appeal
though was filed on 15.05.2020, but without explaining the
delay for the period from 22.01.2020 to 14.05.2020.
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since the delay has
not been properly explained, the same is not liable to be
condoned.
// 3 //
6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel also relied on the
decision of this Court passed on 20.02.2024 in FAO No.507
of 2020. Considering the similar issue, this Court was not
inclined to condone the delay.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found
that against the original order passed on 01.02.2018, the
Department filed a review after more than one years and
nine months of the order knowing that such a review
petition is not entertainable. The Review Petition though
was dismissed vide order dtd.21.01.2020, but the present
appeal was filed on 15.05.2020 and the period in between
22.01.2020 to 14.05.2020 has not been explained properly.
8. Placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Court
on 20.02.2024 in FAO No.507 of 2020, this Court finds no
justifiable ground has been made out to condone the delay.
9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis, this
Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the
appeal and dismiss the I.A. accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
1. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the delay
in filing the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
// 4 //
The amount deposited by the State in terms of the order
dtd.22.06.2023 be refunded to the State-Appellant on
proper application.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
