State Of Odisha & Others vs Managing Committee Of .... Opp. Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 3684 Ori

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.217 of 2018
         State of Odisha & others   .... Petitioners
                                        Mr. S.N. Biswal,
                                        ASC



                           -versus-
         Managing Committee of      .... Opp. Party
         Chandapur High School,        Mr.D.N. Rath,
         Chandapur.                    Advocate




        CORAM:
             JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order                     ORDER
 No.                    05.02.2025
                   I.A. No.244 of 2018
 06.
        1.

This I.A. has been filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition.

2. The Review Petition has been filed against the order dated 11.04.2018 passed by this Court in F.A.O. No.129 of 2014. The Review Petition suffers delay of 213 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 11.4.2018 by this Hon'ble Court in FAO No.129 of 2014. After receipt of the said order the Government in the Department of School and Mass Education vide letter No. dtd. 1.9.2018 directed this deponent to file review petition challenging the order dtd. 11.4.2018 passed in

FAO No.129 of 2014.

4. That after receipt of the aforesaid letter dtd. 1.9.2018, the DEO, Dhenkanal 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 8.11.2018."

3. The opposite party has filed objection to the said application on various grounds. The relevant part of the objection filed by the opposite party opposing the condonation of delay application reads as under:

"6. That from the above, it is clear that the petitioners have not explained the each and every day of delay occurred in filing the review petition. Law is settled in the case of State of Haryana V. Chand Rani, Office of the Chief Post Master General and India v. Living Media India Ltd. and another, 113 (2012) CLT 1066. This Hon'ble Court relying on the said ratio, passed a judgment in the case of State of Orissa v. Bishnupriya Routray, 118 (2014) CLT 58 and dismissed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act since the explanation which was given by the authority was not satisfactory. In view of such, the delay in filing the review petition without explaining each and every day of delay may not be condoned and the same may be rejected and as such the review petition may be dismissed on the ground of limitation."

4. I have perused the reasons explained in the application for condonation of delay and the objection raised by the opposite party. 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 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.

5. Since the petitioners are unable to show sufficient cause to explain the delay of 213 days in filing the Review Petition, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As a sequence, the Review Petition is also dismissed.

Subhasis Judge Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 07-Feb-2025 10:38:23

2024 INSC 577