Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa & Others ....... Review vs Pankajini Pati & Others ....... ... on 11 February, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.71 of 2019
In the matter of an application under Chapter-VIII, Rule 23 of Orissa
High Court Rules, 1948 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
------------
State of Orissa & others ....... Review Petitioners
-Versus-
Pankajini Pati & others ....... Opposite Parties
For the Review Petitioners: Mr. S.N. Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
For the Opposite Parties : M/s. Sabyasachi Mishra,
P.K. Behera and M. Padhi,
Advocates
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 11.02.2025 : Date of Judgment: 11 .02.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. In the present Review Petition the petitioners-State of Orissa,
Department of School & Mass Education have assailed the order dated
09.05.2018 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.1067 of 2015 in
F.A.O. No.694 of 2015, whereby the application for condonation of
delay in filing the First Appeal has been turned down, as a consequence
the appeal has been dismissed.
2. Heard Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Sabyasachi Mishra, learned Counsel for the
Opposite Parties.
3. The petitioners have filed the Review Petition primarily on the
merits of the case although the appeal has been dismissed only on the
ground of delay. The learned State Education Tribunal vide a detailed
judgment dated 08.02.2013 allowed the application of the opposite
parties made under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 as
amended (up to date). The limitation period prescribed for filing the
appeal against the said judgment dated 08.02.2013 passed by the learned
State Education Tribunal under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education
Act, 1969 is 60 days. However, the petitioners have filed the First
Appeal after the inordinate delay of 968 days. Along with the First
Appeal, the petitioners had moved an application for condonation of
delay. The primary ground for condonation of delay urged by the
petitioners is that the Department was unaware of the judgment of the
learned State Education Tribunal dated 08.02.2013. Therefore, the
appeal suffered delay. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the
said contention has, inter alia, arrived at the following conclusion:
"7. The appellants were contesting the proceeding before the
Education Tribunal. So it is not permissible to say that they were not
aware of the result of the proceeding at the time of its conclusion.
The Tribunal was under no legal obligation to send a copy of its
judgment to the appellants as the concept of communication is not
provided in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The matter has
been delta in a very casual manner even after receiving the certified
copy of the judgment and no such prompt action appears to have
been taken. Nothing is stated as to which documents had gone
without being examined, during the pendency of the original
proceeding giving rise to further need for collection of those for
further examination in order to take a decision in the matter of filing
the appeal at the level of standing counsel.
The time consumed in the total process is stretching for a
period of more than two years and seven months. The explanations
are rather casual and do not at all appear to be satisfactory.
Therefore, testing the present case through the spectrum of the ratio
of the decision in case of Office of the Chief Post Master & Others
(supra) and other decisions (supra), this Court finds the explanations
given for the purpose of condonation of delay as unacceptable so as
to say that sufficient causes stood on the way of filing the appeal
late, that to after lapse of more than two years and seven months
from the date of expiry of the period of filing the appeal."
4. The learned Single Judge by relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master &
Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. & another, reported in (2012) 3
SCC 563, has arrived at a conclusion that the cause offered by the
petitioners to explain the delay is not sufficient cause. Hence, the
inordinate delay of 968 days cannot be condoned. Obviously, therefore,
the learned Single Judge of this Court did not advert to the merit of the
case in the Appeal.
5. This Court is of the view that in light of the principles enunciated
in the judgment of Office of the Chief Post Master & Others vs. Living
Media India Ltd. & another (supra), where it was emphasized that mere
procedural red-tape and vague explanations do not constitute valid
grounds for condoning inordinate delays, the bench reiterate that
government bodies and their instrumentalities are under an elevated duty
to discharge their responsibilities with diligence and efficiency. The law
is impartial and must extend its protections equally to all, without being
manipulated for the convenience of specific entities.
6. The petitioners have filed the present Review Petition seeking recall
of the order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the First
Appeal against the judgment of the learned State Education Tribunal.
Surprisingly, the present Review Petition is also delayed by more than
284 days. Therefore, the application being I.A. No.47 of 2019 has been
filed by the petitioners in the present Review Petition seeking
condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition. In the said
application for condonation of delay as well, no cause has been shown
much less "sufficient cause" to explain the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the recent judgement in the matter of MOOL CHANDRA Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR., 2024 INSC 577 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."
The petitioners-State neither at the stage of filing the First
Appeal could offer sufficient cause explaining the delay of 968 days nor
could even explain the delay of 284 days in filing the present Review
Petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused by
the petitioners to file the Review Petition in the absence of any
explanation causing huge delay of 284 days. It is well known 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," aptly applies in the present
case, as the petitioners have failed to act diligently and vigilantly in
pursuing their legal remedies in time. The grounds urged by the
petitioners to seek review of the order of the learned Single Judge dated
09.05.2018 is not even covered under Order 47 of CPC. Therefore, on
the ground of delay as well as on merit, the Review Petition fails being
devoid of merits.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No.47 of 2019 filed by the petitioners for
condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition is rejected.
Consequently, the Review Petition is dismissed.
......................
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
th
The 11 February, 2025/A.K. Kar, ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASISH KUMAR KAR
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
