Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Others vs Managing Committee Of .... Opp. Parties on 5 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.226 of 2018
State of Odisha & others .... Petitioners
Mr. S.N. Biswal,
ASC
-versus-
Managing Committee of .... Opp. Parties
P.M.A.M. High School, Mr.Sabyasachi
Manbir, Dist. Mayurbhanj & Mishra,
others Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 05.02.2025
I.A. No.257 of 2018
04.
1.
This I.A. has been filed by the petitioners for
condonation of delay of 178 days in filing the Review
Petition.
2. The Review Petition has been filed against the
order dated 25.04.2018 passed by this Court in Misc.
Case No.1092 of 2015 arising out of F.A.O. No.706 of
2015. The Review Petition suffers delay of 178 days.
On the condonation of delay application, the
petitioners have, inter alia, stated as under:
"3. That, after receipt of the above said order dtd.
25.4.2018 the Government in the Department of
School and Mass Education, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar vide letter dtd. 05.10.2018 directed
this deponent to file the review petition
challenging the order dtd. 25.4.2018 passed in
misc. Case No.1092 of 2015 (arising out of FAO
No.706 of 2015) before the Hon'ble High Court of
Odisha, Cuttack.
4. That, it is humbly submitted that after receipt of
the above said instruction from the Government,
this deponent moved the Office of the Senior
Standing Counsel, School and Mass Education,
Cell, Cuttack for drafting of review petition and
after necessary discussion Review petition was
prepared and filed on 19.11.2018."
3. I have perused the reasons explained in the
application for condonation of delay. The petitioners
have absolutely failed to show sufficient cause to
explain the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
recent judgment in the case of Mool Chandra vs.
Union of India and another1, have held thus:
"It is not the length of delay that would be
required to be considered while examining the
plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for
delay which has been propounded will have to be
examined. If the cause for delay would fall within
the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective
of the length of delay same deserves to be
condoned. However, if the cause shown is
insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay,
same would not be condoned."
In addition to this, referring to the well-known
principle in law that litigant who sleep over his rights
shall not get favour of the Court, which explained in
the maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura
Subveniunt", which means "The law assists only
those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over
2024 INSC 577
their rights," appositely applies in the present case,
as it is apparent from the face of that the present
petitioners have failed to act vigilantly, as a result of
which their submission lacks sufficient cause to
justify the delay.
4. Since the petitioners are unable to show
sufficient cause to explain the delay of 178 days in
filing the Review Petition, the application for
condonation of delay is dismissed. As a sequence, the
Review Petition is also dismissed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 07-Feb-2025 10:38:23
