Orissa High Court
Chintamani Das & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 30 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.741 of 2020
Chintamani Das & Others .... Appellants
Mr. S. Swain, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Respondents
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
30.04.2025
Order No
03. I.A No.305 of 2025
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
1318 days in filing the appeal in question. The present appeal has
been filed challenging the order dtd.28.10.2019 passed by the
learned State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A
Case No.978 of 2017. It is contended that since the GIA Case was
dismissed just prior to advent of COVID-19, Appellants could not
know about the order so passed. On coming to know that GIA case
has been dismissed vide order dtd. 28.10.2019, Appellants applied
for the certified copy and after getting the same filed the appeal. It
is accordingly contended that the delay in filing the appeal is not
intentional and rather bona fide one and the same be condoned.
// 2 //
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 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
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."
// 3 //
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 even though by the time the appeal
was filed delay had already occurred to the extent of 1318 days, but
the present application for condonation of delay was only filed in
the year 2025.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court does
not find any sufficient cause pleaded by the appellants for
condoning the delay in question. Therefore, this Court is not
// 4 //
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
