Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Joogendra Pradhan on 7 April, 2025
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 09-Apr-2025 17:16:51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.1261 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr.K.C.Kar, G.A.
-versus-
Joogendra Pradhan .... Respondent
Mr.S.K.Das, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
7.4.2025
Order No. I.A.No.3327 of 2024 & W.A. No.1261 of 2024
1. 1. Heard Mr.Kar, learned Government Advocate for the
Appellants and Mr.Das, learned counsel for the Respondent.
2. The application for condonation of delay has been
taken up by the Appellants for condonation of 601 days. It is
averred in the said application that the copy of the impugned
judgment dated 23rd August 2022 passed in connection with
W.P.(C) No.34824 of 2021 was received by the Office of the
CDM and PHO, Khordha on 27th September 2022 and thereafter
the said file was taken into consideration and placed before the
Joint Secretary to the Government of Health and Family Welfare
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 09-Apr-2025 17:16:51
Department for taking a decision for further course of action. The
said authority after perusal of the said judgment took a decision
to challenge the same by filing an intra-court appeal and
communicated the same vide letter dated 8th August 2023, which
was received by the Department on 16th August 2023. It is further
pleaded that the CDM and PHO, Khordha vide letter dated 24th
August 2023 submitted all relevant documents along with the
impugned order before the learned Advocate General for
preparation of the memorandum with an intent to file the instant
appeal. Subsequently, the learned Advocate General entrusted the
instant appeal to the learned Additional Government Advocate
for preparation of appeal by drafting the memorandum so that it
may be filed within a short time. The pleadings further proceeds
that the said learned Additional Government Advocate requested
the aforementioned Department to depute an Officer well
acquainted with the facts and circumstances not only for the
purpose of filing an appeal, but also drafting the interim
application including an application for condonation of delay.
3. Such being the facts discern from the pleadings of the
Appellants for condonation of delay, let us examine whether
those can be brought within the ambit of expression "sufficient
cause" appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 09-Apr-2025 17:16:51
4. The counsel for the Respondent is very much vocal in
his submission that not only there is complete lack of explanation
for such inordinate delay, but also the instant appeal is not
maintainable in view of the disposal of an earlier writ appeal filed
by some of the co-delinquent employee, who were parties to the
common judgment, which is impugned in the instant appeal.
5. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and
submissions emanating from the record, let us find out whether
any grounds are made out for the purpose of condoning such
inordinate delay.
6. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that the
Court should not be swayed by the length of delay but must be
guided by the merit of the explanations offered in an application
for condonation of delay. The length of longer period may be
condoned provided the Court finds the ground assigned is coming
within the purview of the sufficient cause; may reject the
application for condonation of delay of short period, in the event
the explanation is scanty and/or not plausible.
7. The narration of the facts as above does not install
confidence upon us that there has been a sufficient explanation
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 09-Apr-2025 17:16:51
offered therein. The copy of the order was duly communicated to
the Department way back on 29th July 2022. Yet the pleading is
silent for merely one year when the decision is stated to have
been taken for filing of the instant appeal. We can well appreciate
the steps having taken after the approach is made to the learned
Advocate General of this Court and the time consumed for
preparation of memorandum of appeal along with the other
applications including the one before us, but we cannot overlook
the fact that there is no explanation offered between the period
reckoning from the date of the communication of the impugned
order and the decision having taken for filing of instant appeal.
The State nor its instrumentality can be regarded as the privilege
litigant. The moment the Court finds that there has been
lackadaisical, dormant and lethargic attitude perceived from the
conduct of the officials, who were supposed to take a strong
decision and having not taken so, cannot expect the blessing of
the Court by condoning the delay. The moment the Court does
not find the explanation to be satisfactory, there is no fetter on the
part of the Court in refusing to condone such inordinate delay.
We thus do not find any merit in the application inviting the
exercise of discretion to condone the delay of 601 days.
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 09-Apr-2025 17:16:51
Accordingly, the I.A. is hereby dismissed. As consequence
thereof, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal/M.K.Panda
