State Of Odisha And Others vs Suchitra Kumar Patel
2025 Latest Caselaw 826 Ori

Orissa High Court

State Of Odisha And Others vs Suchitra Kumar Patel on 3 July, 2025

Author: M.S. Sahoo

Bench: M.S. Sahoo

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 WA No.1744 of 2024

            State of Odisha and others             ....            Appellants

                                                     Represented By Adv. -
                                              Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA
                                         -versus-

            Suchitra Kumar Patel                   ....           Respondent
                                                   Represented By Adv. -
                                          Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate


                              CORAM:
                              JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
                              JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

                                          ORDER

03.07.2025

I.A. No.4564 of 2024 & WA No.1744 of 2024 Order No.

01. 1. This State appeal is filed after occasioning a delay of 461 days along with an application for condoning it; it is supported by an affidavit.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that in a more or less similar matter a Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the State appeal and that was carried in Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No(s).22605 of 2020 and the Apex Court having faltered the dismissal, allowed the SLP & remanded the matter for fresh consideration with the observation that matter should be heard on merits. He also submits that the State

is only a legal entity which works through the officials as its limbs and this working is on stage-wise basis and at times delay is unintentionally caused when papers move from one table to another or from one office to another. He also points out that there is a whole lot of process till the decision is taken at the pinnacle. Lastly, he adds that there are some arguable points in the main matter itself. So arguing, he seeks for the allowing of application and condoning of the delay.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent with equal vehemence resists the application contending that delay is too long and that the explanation offered is too frugal and therefore there is absolutely no justification for favouring the application. He also adds that routinely in matters like this delay cannot be condoned State being a model litigant. He banks upon following rulings in support of his contention:

(i) Post Master General v. Living Media India Limited:

(2012) 3 SCC 563;

(ii) The State of Odisha v. Sunanda Mahakuda: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).22605/2020;

(iii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 v. M/s. Bank of Baroda: Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No(s).24889/2024.

4. The learned counsel for the Appellant-State relies on order of the Supreme Court dated 11.11.2024 in Civil Appeal No.012282 of 2024 (State of Odisha & others v. Atala Bihari Mohanty & others) and order dated 14.02.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13725 of 2024 (State of Odisha and another v. Trilochan Rout and others), wherein the Apex Court has held:

"1. Challenged in this Special Leave Petition is a final judgment and order dated 20-12-2023 in WA No. 2854/2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack whereby a writ appeal at the instance of the petitioner State against an order of a learned Single Judge in batch of writ petitions, directing that the petitioners (including the respondent(s) herein) were entitled to get the benefit of grant-in aid from the date of their entitlement, and shall not be limited to three years from the date of the application to receive such aid.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought to have condoned the delay of 184 days,223 days, 243 days, 223 days and 231 days in respective petitions.

3. We find the petitioners to have furnished sufficient explanation preferring the appeal(s) assailing the order dated 21.4.2023 passed by the learned Single in the writ petition(s) filed before it.

4. The effect being that all issues arising in the writ appeal(s) are left open for the High Court to adjudicate save and except the aspect of delay which has been hereby condoned.

5. As such the application(s) for condonation of delay are allowed. The matters are remanded to the High Court for consideration of the appeals before the Division Bench on merits, in accordance with law."

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the paper books, more focusing on the application seeking condonation of delay and having regard to totality of circumstances, in which the appeal is preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that rejecting application of the kind would cause great injustice to the State, which functions in the public interest. The Sages of Law have said that condonation of delay would not add merits to the case of appellant to the

disadvantage of the others. After all, what would happen is the matter would be heard on merits and nothing beyond that.

6. We also take judicial cognizance of the fact that more older matters than this are stacked in the Court's Cupboards and are waiting for being dusted out. It is not that if this appeal was filed in time, it would have been heard and disposed of by now. Thus a host of factors favour the case of applicant/appellant.

7. In the above circumstances, this application is favoured and delay of 461 days brooked in filing the appeal is condoned unconditionally. The application is disposed of.

8. Call the Writ Appeal on 17th July, 2025 for reporting compliance.

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

(M. S. Sahoo) Judge Gs/Radha