State Of Orissa & Others ....... Review vs Krutibas Sahoo & Others ....... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3050 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3050 Ori
Judgement Date : 29 January, 2025

Orissa High Court

State Of Orissa & Others ....... Review vs Krutibas Sahoo & Others ....... ... on 29 January, 2025

                  THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              RVWPET No.221 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-


        Krutibas Sahoo & others          .......            Opposite Parties

              For the Review Petitioners:     Mr. S.N. Biswal,
                                              Additional Standing Counsel

              For the Opposite Parties :      Mr. Budhadev Routray,
                                              Senior Advocate, along with
                                              Mr. K. Mohanty, S. Sekhar,
                                              R.P. Dalai, S.S. Routray and
                                              S.D. Routray, Advocates

        CORAM:

         THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

         Date of Hearing: 07.01.2024 :      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.171 of 2016 arising

out of F.A.O. No.86 of 2016, 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. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel

appearing 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 24.12.2013 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 24.12.2013 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 724 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 24.12.2013. 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. 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.

There is absolutely no such reason given as to why the delay took place or what circumstances prevented from promptly acting in the matter. 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 that does not merit acceptance."

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 724 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

219 days. Therefore, the application being I.A. No.248 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 724 days nor could

even explain the delay of 219 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 219 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