[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Another vs Maheswar Mallick And Others on 28 November, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 2988 of 2024
State of Odisha and another .... Appellants
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, AGA
-Versus -
Maheswar Mallick and others .... Respondents
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. J.R. Khuntia, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
28.11.2025
Order No. (Hybrid mode)
03. 1. Office note put up by the Registry indicates that response of
opp.party-respondent has not been filed in the I.A. seeking
condonation of delay. Mr. J.R.Khuntia submits that he is
filing objection today.
2. Objection is taken on record. Copy served on learned
AGA in Court.
3. Heard learned AGA.
It is submitted referring to the I.A. supported by affidavit
particularly paragraphs 4 to 9 that sufficient cause has been
shown in condoning the reported delay of 158 days in filing
the appeal. Referring to the paragraphs 1 & 2 of the I.A. it is
submitted that the appellants otherwise have an arguable
case on merits which needs to be considered by this Court.
4. Learned AGA relies on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the SLPs, wherein about 500 or more SLPs have
been allowed by the Apex Court setting aside orders passed
by this Court in not condoning the delay in filing Writ Appeal.
Learned AGA specifically cited decision of the Apex Court in
Nikunja Kishore Panigrahi (supra) wherein the Court has
condoned the delay of more than 500 days in filing the writ
appeal.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Khuntia for the respondents
vehemently opposes the prayer for condonation of delay and
submits that the reasons stated explaining delay are too
frugal to be accepted. Learned counsel relies on the decision
rendered by the Apex Court in Shivamma (Dead) by L.Rs. v.
Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. : 2025 INSC 1104 :
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969.
6. In the following SLPs the I.A.s filed before this Court
seeking condonation of delay in filing Writ Appeals by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court were considered and SLPs were
allowed by the Apex Court.
Sl. Name of the parties SLP Nos. DATE
No.
1. State of Odisha and others v. SLP(C) 21.11.2023
Nikunja Kishore Panigrahi No.2146 of
2. State of Odisha and others v. SLP(C) 10.09.2024
Madhurima Panigrahi No.9008 of
3. State of Odisha and others v. SLP(Civil) 14.02.2025
Prasanna Kumar Jena and No.25180 of
others 2024
4. State of Odisha v. Sudhansu SLP(C) 21.02.2025
Sekhar Jena (disposed of on No.2146 of
09.10.2025 by this Bench in 2024
W.A. No. 1134 of 2023)
5. State of Odisha v. Ajaya Kumar SLP(Civil) No. 19.3.2025
Bhoi 23039 of
6. State of Odisha & another v. SLP(Civil) 21.07.2025
Shantilata Swain and another No. 15194
of 2024
7. State of Odisha and others v. SLP(C) No. 15.10.2024
Bhikari Charan Prusty 13762 of
In all the above writ appeals delay has been condoned by
the Apex Court after considering the reasons stated by the
appellant-State in I.A. filed before this Court in W.A. and
giving a finding that the sufficient cause has been shown.
7. We are presented with the situation where we have to
decide whether the reported delay of 158 days in filing the
appeal is to be condoned or not.
In the case of State of Odisha and others v.
Madhurima Panigrahi, SLP(C) No.9008 of 2024, twelve
SLPs were taken up together and it was held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court as follows -
"5. In cases of this nature, which may have implication
for a large number of Government employees and also
financial implication for the State, the Division Bench
ought to have considered the merit of the State's
challenge particularly when most of the Writ Appeals
were not filed with inordinate delay.
6. In the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to
set aside the impugned judgment(s) of the Division
Bench. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. The
matters are remitted back to the Division Bench of the
High Court so that a decision on merit on the State's
challenge, can be rendered. Effort should be made for
early disposal of the Writ Appeal(s)."
8. In State of Odisha v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena, [SLP(C)
No. 2146 of 2024,] 2025 INSC 259, 308 SLPs filed by the
State were allowed by setting aside the order(s) passed by the
Coordinate Bench(es) of this Court in not condoning the delay
in filing writ appeals, not considering the matter on merit and
directing dismissal of the writ appeals. The Apex Court
observed condonation of delay in all the 308 matters and
remanded all the matters for consideration of the writ appeals
on merit.
9. In State of Odisha and Others v. Nikunja Kishore
Panigrahi, SLP(C) No.11443/2023, delay of one and half
years in filing the writ appeal was not condoned by this
Court, relying on the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench
in State of Odisha and others v. Surama Manjari Das,
WP(C) No.15763 of 2021. In the SLP, the said order
dismissing the writ appeal on the ground of delay was
challenged by the State. The Supreme Court while condoning
the delay of one and half years in filing the writ appeal, held
thus -
"3. The order impugned has been passed by the High
Court of Orissa dismissing the Writ Petition simply on
the ground of delay and laches relying upon the
judgment/order of the High Court of Orissa in the case
of State of Odisha vs. Surama Manjari Das [W.P. (C)
No.15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16th July, 2021].
4. Learned counsel for the appellant - State submits that
the delay was only of one and a half years and the
issue requires consideration and hearing on merits.
Further, it was submitted that this is not an isolated
case per se for the reason that it has other ramifications
as various such claims will have to be dealt with and
any order not going into the merits would also entail
financial liability on the State.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to an
order passed by a coordinate Bench in which the order
impugned was in similar terms and the writ petition has
been dismissed on the ground of gross delay. Having
considered the matter, the Court finds that in the present
case, the delay was not such that it could be termed as
gross delay or laches, which were totally attributable to
the appellants. In the present case, the delay was only
of one and a half years and initially when the Writ
Petition was filed in the year 2019 challenging the order
dated 04th December, 2017 and there was a stay which
continued almost for two years and when the matter
was taken up the Court had dismissed it only on the
ground of delay.
6. Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the
issue is required to be heard on merits. However, the
Court is not inclined to consider the merits at this stage
as he High Court would be a more appropriate forum for
the present for the issue to be thrashed out on merits."
10. In State of Odisha v. Ajaya Kumar Bhoi & another,
SLP(C) No. 23039/2024, order passed in the writ appeal by
the Coordinate Bench in not condoning the delay was set
aside by the Apex Court and the matter was remanded to be
considered on merits by this Court, which has again come to
be listed before this Court.
11. The reliance of the Coordinate Bench(es) on Surama
Manjari Das (supra) is for the fact that the said decision was
challenged by filing SLP and the SLP was dismissed. However,
subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court have taken view as
we have noted above and condoned delay in filing Writ
Appeals.
We also observe that, condonation of delay would not add
any merit to the case of the appellant, which has to stand on
its own merit.
Accordingly, the delay of 158 days in filing the appeal is
condoned. The I.A. is favoured and disposed of.
12. We notice that Shivamma (supra) did not have occasion
to consider the seven decisions rendered by the apex Court of
co-equal Benches by which more than five hundred SLPs
were disposed of. In any event the condonation of delay by
the Apex Court is a matter of discretion and Shivamma
(supra) cannot be cited raising contention that earlier
decisions have been overruled.
13. In our considered opinion, condonation of delay will not
add any further merit to the case of the appellants. In view of
the above discussions, the reported delay of 158 days in filing
the appeal is condoned.
14. I.A. is favoured and disposed of.
15. Heard learned AGA.
Issue notice.
Since Mr. K.K.Swain and associates have already entered
appearance and on record, no further notice be issued. Copy
of the appeal memo along with I.A. and other connected
papers have been served on Mr. Khutia.
16. Pursuant to the notice issued on 13.10.2025, learned
counsel for respondent is on record. When we take up for
consideration of the interim order of stay, learned counsel for
respondents vehemently opposes the interim prayer stating
that appellate court should not stay the operation of the
interim order. We have pointedly asked whether he relies on
any decision of the apex Court or any binding precedent of
this Court wherein the appellate Court while considering the
appeal should not direct in the interim, stay of operation of
the order under challenge; learned counsel does not have any
answer.
17. It is brought to our notice by learned AGA for the
appellants that contempt application has been filed for non-
compliance of the impugned order. The contempt application
not being assignment of this Bench, cannot be taken up by
us.
18. We are faced with a situation where during pendency of
the appeal before this Court, the appellant (may be as a
correct strategy) tries for implementation of the order under
challenge.
Now if the order is implemented, nothing would survive
for adjudication in the Appeal.
The learned counsel for the respondent further submits
that the matter should be taken up for hearing though filed in
the year 2024 ahead of other matters. In our considered view,
we cannot prioritise hearing of any case by ignoring the
earlier Writ Appeals pending adjudication before this Court.
In view of the above discussions, in the interim, it is
directed that the operation of the order dated 22.04.2024
passed in W.P. (C) No.9567 of 2024 shall remain stayed till
the next date of hearing.
List 'For Admission' on 9th January, 2026.
Liberty to mention.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
dutta
