Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa & Others ....... Review vs Managing Committee Of Panchayat on 31 January, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.224 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 Panchayat
High School, Purusottampur ....... Opposite Party
For the Review Petitioners: Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
For the Opposite Party : M/s. Mahendra Kumar Sahoo
and S.S. Patra, Advocates
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 31.01.2025 : Date of Judgment: 31.01.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. In the present Review Petition the petitioners-State of Orissa,
Department of School & Mass Education have assailed the order dated
26.04.2018 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.916 of 2018 in F.A.O.
No.290 of 2018, 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. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing
Counsel 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 29.11.2016 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 29.11.2016 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 416 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 29.11.2016. 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 for filing the appeal at the
level of Senior Standing Counsel of the Department.
The time consumed in the total process is stretching for a
period of more than one year and one month. 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 no justification to
entertain the petition for condonation of delay by saying that the
sufficient causes stood the way of filing the appeal late, that too after
the lapse of more than a year and month 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 416 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 the 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 26.04.2018 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
178 days. Therefore, the application being I.A. No.254 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 416 days nor
could even explain the delay of 178 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 178 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
26.04.2018 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.254 of 2018 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
st
The 31 January, 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
