Orissa High Court

State Of Orissa & Others ....... Review vs Managing Committee Of Khatkurbahal ... on 29 January, 2025

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RVWPET No.233 of 2018

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-

Managing Committee of Khatkurbahal High School

....... Opposite Party

For the Review Petitioners: Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena,
Additional Government Advocate

For the Opposite Party : M/s. Mahendra Kumar Sahoo,
S. Pradhan and S.K. Mishra, Advocates

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 27.01.2025 : Date of Judgment: 29.01.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. In the present Review Petition the petitioners-State of Orissa,

Department of School & Mass Education have assailed the order dated

16.03.2018 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.284 of 2017 in F.A.O.
No.155 of 2017, 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. Udit Ranjan Jena, learned Additional Government

Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sahoo, learned

counsel for the Opposite Party.

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 26.08.2013 allowed the application of the opposite party

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 26.08.2013 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 inordinate delay of 1299 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

Page 2 of 6
the Department was unaware of the judgment of the learned State

Education Tribunal dated 26.08.2013. Therefore, the appeal suffered

delay. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the said contention

has, inter alia, arrived at the following conclusion:

"6. 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. 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. The appellants are found to have
not acted promptly even after receipt of the information about result
of the case and have rather dealt it in casual manner.
The time consumed in the total process is stretching for a
period of about three years and six 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 referred to therein, this Court finds no
justification to prima facie say that sufficient causes stood on the
way of filing the appeal late, i.e., after lapse of about three years and
six months from the date of expiry of the period of filing the appeal
so as to entertain the petition."

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

Page 3 of 6
petitioners to explain the delay is not sufficient cause. Hence, the

inordinate delay of 1299 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 16.03.2018 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

Page 4 of 6
225 days. Therefore, the application being I.A. No.267 of 2018 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 1299 days nor could

even explain the delay of 225 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 225 days. It is well known in law that litigant who

sleep over his rights shall not get favour of the Court, which explained in

Page 5 of 6
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