Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Jaladhar Kuanr And Others on 24 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.4 of 2006
State of Odisha .... Appellant
Mrs. U. Padhi, ASC
-versus-
Jaladhar Kuanr and others .... Respondents
Mr. B. S. Panigrahi, Advocate
(For Res. No.3(a) to 3(d)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
24.06.2025
Order No. LAA No.4 of 2006 &
Misc. Case No.19 of 2006
12. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. In view of the office note, notice on limitation matter
issued to the LRs of deceased Respondent No.3 and
Respondent No.7 are held to be sufficient.
3. Though no written objection has been filed opposing
to the prayer made in the I.A. for condonation of delay, Mr.
B. S. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the substituted
Respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(d) orally opposes to the
application for condonation of delay on the ground that the
delay has not been properly explained, though, as per
settled position of law, each day's delay has to be
explained.
4. This Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment/award dated 05.08.2002, passed by the learned
Civil Judge (S.D.), Keonjhar in L.A.M.J.C. No.110 of 2001.
5. As per the office note, there is a delay of 1181 days in
filing the present appeal. The reasons indicated in the
Misc. Case for delay in preferring the Appeal are not
convincing. That apart, the delay has not been properly
explained. Further, though the Application for condonation
of delay is pending since 2006, no step was taken by the
State-Appellant to expedite the process of disposal of the
said petition.
6. The Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post
Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. &
Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 observed as under:
"12) It is not in dispute that the
person(s) concerned were well aware
or conversant with the issues involved
including the prescribed period of
limitation for taking up the matter by
way of filing a special leave petition in
this Court. They cannot claim that they
have a separate period of limitation
when the Department was possessed
with competent persons familiar with
court proceedings. In the absence of
plausible and acceptable explanation,
we are posing a question why the
delay is to be condoned mechanically
merely because the Government or a
wing of the Government is a party
before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact
that in a matter of condonation of
delay when there was no gross
negligence or deliberate inaction or
lack of bonafide, a liberal concession
has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice, we are of the view
that in the facts and circumstances,
the Department cannot take advantage
of various earlier decisions. The claim
on account of impersonal machinery
and inherited bureaucratic
methodology of making several notes
cannot be accepted in view of the
modern technologies being used and
available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody
including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right time to
inform all the government bodies, their
agencies and instrumentalities that
unless they have reasonable and
acceptable explanation for the delay
and there was bonafide effort, there is
no need to accept the usual
explanation that the file was kept
pending for several months/years due
to considerable degree of procedural
red tape in the process. The
government departments are under a
special obligation to ensure that they
perform their duties with diligence and
commitment. Condonation of delay is
an exception and should not be used
as an anticipated benefit for
government departments. The law
shelters everyone under the same light
and should not be swirled for the
benefit of a few. Considering the fact
that there was no proper explanation
offered by the Department for the
delay except mentioning of various
dates, according to us, the Department
has miserably failed to give any
acceptable and cogent reasons
sufficient to condone such a huge
delay. Accordingly, the appeals are
liable to be dismissed on the ground of
delay."
7. Also, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case
of State of Odisha Vrs. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C)
No.15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), which was
passed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal, reported in
2020 SCC Online SC 849, this Appeal deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
8. Accordingly, the Misc. Case for condonation of delay
as well as Appeal stand dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.
9. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State-
Appellant is directed to implement the judgment/award
dated 05.08.2002 passed in L.A.M.J.C. No.110 of 2001
within a period of eight weeks from the date of production
of certified copy of this order.
(S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Mona
Location: High Court of Orissa
