Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Others vs Managing Committee Of .... Opp. Party on 5 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.240 of 2018
State of Odisha & others .... Petitioners
Mr. S.N. Biswal,
ASC
-versus-
Managing Committee of .... Opp. Party
Padhuan Kumarpur High
School, Kumarpur
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 05.02.2025
I.A. No.01 of 2019
01.
1.
This I.A. has been filed by the petitioners for
condonation of delay of 195 days in filing the Review
Petition.
2. The Review Petition has been filed against the
order dated 18.04.2018 passed by this Court in
F.A.O. No.155 of 2014. The Review Petition suffers
delay of 195 days. On the condonation of delay
application, the petitioners have, inter alia, stated as
under:
"3. That the judgment in the aforesaid FAO was
pronounced on 18.4.2018 by this Hon'ble Court in
FAO No.155 of 2014. After receipt of the said
order the Government in the Department of School
and Mass Education vide letter dtd. 5.10.2018
directed this deponent to file review petition
challenging the order dtd. 18.4.2018 passed in
FAO No.155 of 2014.
4. That after receipt of the aforesaid letter dtd.
5.10.2018, the DEO, Bhadrak immediately came to the
office of the Sr. Standing Counsel along with necessary
documents and records and discussed with the
concerned Standing Counsel for filing of Review
petition and accordingly the learned Standing Counsel,
S & M.E. Cell, Cuttack drafted the review petition and
the same was filed on 26.11.2018."
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 195 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
