Orissa High Court
Sasmita Kumari Patro & Another vs State Of Odisha & Others on 23 June, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.16514 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Sasmita Kumari Patro & Another
... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Ms. P. Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 23.06.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.06.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which
prompted the petitioners for filing this writ petition is that, the
appellate authority i.e. the Sub-Collector, Balliguda dismissed
the appeal vide Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025 of the petitioners
only on the ground of limitation, because there was 80 days
delay in preferring the appeal vide Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025
by the petitioners of this writ petition (those were the
appellants in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025) assigning the
reasons that, the appeal should have been presented within 30
days from the date of the impugned order obtaining the certified
copy of the said impugned order, but, the appeal has not been
filed within 30 days of the passing of the impugned order, for
which, the appeal is beyond the limit prescribed in Odisha
Mutation Manual, therefore, the appeal is rejected.
2. On being aggrieved with the said order of
rejection/dismissal of the appeal vide Misc. Appeal No.01 of
2025 of the petitioners passed on dated 18.02.2025 by the
Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3), the appellants
thereof have challenged the same by filing this writ petition
being the petitioners praying for quashing the said order dated
18.02.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp.
Party No.3) in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025.
3. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
4. "It is the settled propositions of law that, when courses of
substantial justice and the law of technicalities are pitted
against each other, the courses of substantial justice deserves
to be preferred for no other reason, but only in order to comply
the principles of natural justice and to avoid the multiplicity of
litigations between the parties in deciding the case/appeal on
merit after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties
instead of dismissing/rejecting the same on any of the technical
ground including point of limitation like this matter at hand."
5. So, in view of such principles of law, the Sub-Collector,
Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3) should not have
rejected/dismissed the Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 on dated
18.02.2025 filed by the petitioners of this writ petition only on
the sole ground of limitation without condoning the delay of
80 days in preferring the appeal. For which, the impugned
order passed by the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3)
rejecting their Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 only on a sole
technical ground i.e. limitation without taking the recourse of
rendering substantial justice to the parties cannot be
sustainable under law.
6. Therefore, there is justification under law for making
interference with the impugned order passed on dated
18.02.2025 in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025 by the Sub-
Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3) through this writ
petition filed by the petitioners.
7. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioners. The same must succeed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
allowed on contest.
9. The impugned order passed on dated 18.02.2025 in
Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 by the Sub-Collector, Balliguda
(Opp. Party No.3) is set aside/quashed.
10. The matter vide Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 is remitted
back to the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3) to
decide the said matter i.e. Misc. Appeal No.01/2025 afresh as
per law as expeditiously as possible on merit without
questioning about the period of limitation (as the said point
has already been negatived/set aside in this Judgment) after
giving opportunity of being heard to the parties and complying
the principles of natural justice in full.
11. The Registry is directed to communicate this Judgment
immediately to the Sub-Collector, Balliguda (Opp. Party No.3).
12. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
disposed of finally.
13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted to the
petitioners on proper application.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 23 .06. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
