Unknown vs Union Of India & Others (In All Wps) .... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9843 Ori

Orissa High Court

Unknown vs Union Of India & Others (In All Wps) .... ... on 11 November, 2025

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                  W.P.(C) No.40109 of 2023
                  W.P.(C) No.8505 of 2024
                  W.P.(C) No.26890 of 2024
                  W.P.(C) No.26964 of 2024
                  W.P.(C) No.26981 of 2024
                            &
                  W.P.(C) No.22033 of 2025

In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
                             -------------
 SUPRATIVA, represented by its
 Secretary-Bikash Mohapatra
 [In W.P.(C) No.40109 of 2023]

Swosti Mahila Bikash Parisad,
represented by its Secretary-Smt.
Pratima Mohapatra
[In W.P.(C) No.8505 of 2024]

MTSSS (Mother Teresa Samaja Sebi
Sangathan), represented by its
Secretary-Niranjan Naik
[In W.P.(C) No.26890 of 2024]

Sanjog (Voluntary Organization),
represented by its Director-Ambuja
Kumar Puhan
[In W.P.(C) No.26964 of 2024]

ISWAR (Integrated Social Welfare &
Research Centre), represented by its
Secretary-Rabindra Chandra Behera
[In W.P.(C) No.26981 of 2024]

                                                     Page 1 of 12
        Maharshi      Dayananda        Service
       Mission, represented by its Secretary-
       Sri Pradip Kumar Sahoo
       [In W.P.(C) No.22033 of 2025]                        ....             Petitioners

                                           -versus-

       Union of India & Others (In all WPs)                 ....     Opposite Parties

                           Advocates Appeared in this case

             For Petitioners       -       M/s.Abhilash Mishra &
                                           B.P. Panda, Advocates (in all WPs)

             For Opp. Parties -            Mr.P.K. Parhi, DSGI
                                           Mr.B.S.Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel
                                           Mr.D.Gochhayat, CGC,
                                           Mr.M.K. Pradhan, CGC
                                           [O.Ps.1 & 3 in all WPs]

                                           Mr. U.C. Behura,
                                           Addl. Government Advocate
                                           (O.Ps.2, 4 & 5 in all WPs)
                                               ------------
   CORAM
      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Date of Hearing & Judgment : 11.11.2025
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

All these petitions have substantially similar fact

matrix, notwithstanding little variations this side or that side.

Essentially, dispute is with regard to claim for reimbursement of

monies by the petitioner-agencies. The claim is on the ground that

petitioners have discharged certain functions under a Central

Government Scheme, i.e., National Child Labour Project. These

claims, essentially, the Jurisdictional District Collector has to

process, keeping in view the policy parameters of the Scheme,

State being the implementing agency. The Scheme has been

funded by the Central Government. A bare perusal of the contents

of the Scheme shows that it is intended to bring the children to the

mainstream of education with the involvement of agencies like the

petitioners. For that, formally contracts are concluded between the

private agencies and the implementer, i.e., the Jurisdictional

District Collector through whom the State mediately functions in

implementing the said Scheme.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that

under the contracts in question, the obligations having been

discharged, the petitioners are entitled to payments, which they

have specified in their claims; the Jurisdictional District Collector

has recommended substantially the claim of these agencies and

there is no positive response from the Union Government to the

same. Therefore, he submits that interference of the Writ Court is

eminently warranted in the matters.

3. After service of notice, the Union Government has entered

appearance through its Senior Panel Counsel and opposes the

petitioners by filing the counter. The State is represented by

learned AGA and it has chosen not to file any counter. Learned

Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India vehemently

opposes the petitions contending that: The petitions are time

barred; even for instituting money suites, there is a specified

limitation period of three years; although the Limitation Act, 1963

per se is not applicable, the Apex Court has taken the view that

while adjudging the delay & laches, regard should be had to what

has been specified as limitation period in the 1963 Act; even

otherwise there is no privity of contract between the petitioners

and the Union of India; the claim under the Scheme has to be time

bound by its very nature; substantiation of the claim has also to be

undertaken; the so called contracts, which the petitioners are

alleged to have entered into with the State agencies, are

themselves time barred and they trampled the timelines

prescribed by the Central Government; therefore, no legally

enforceable liability on the shoulders of Central Government.

4. Learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite parties, with

equal vehemence, resists the petitions drawing attention of the

Court to the parts of petition pleadings that arguably demonstrate

petitioners' claims being hopelessly time barred; under section 3 of

the 1963 Act, a duty is cast on the Court to reject the time barred

petitions, whether such a contention is taken up or not by the

opposing parties; though the State has not filed its Counter it can

show that petitions are either not maintainable or that they are

time barred, District Collector's letter dated 13.07.2023 does not

revive a dead cause of action, the limitation runs once the cause

accrues, even otherwise the said letter addressed to the Central

Government would not advance the case of petitioners in any way,

when material particulars are militantly lacking. Lastly, he

contends that the petitions involve disputed facts and therefore,

the petitioners having alternate & equally efficacious remedy of

suit, should be non-suited here. So contending, he seeks dismissal

of the petitions.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a

limited interference in the matter as under and for the following

reasons:

5.1. The Central Government Scheme, it is broadly admitted at

the Bar, is not a Statutory Scheme as such, although some of the

paragraphs therein loosely refer to laws relating to protection of

children and advancement of their educational interest.

Essentially, it is a Scheme promulgated in exercise of executive

power availing to the Union of India under Article 73 of the

Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya

Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 observed that the

Executive Power of the Central Government/State is co-extensive

with the legislative power. Where Schemes of the kind are kept in

view in catering to the educational needs of the inter alia children,

it cannot be argued that its provisions are not judiciable. That is

how Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur judgment is structured. Where

parties envisaged under the Scheme undertake certain obligations

by way of contract or otherwise, they are entitled to draw assured

benefits. Therefore, the contention that Scheme is non-statutory or

otherwise would pale into insignificance. In any way, it cannot be

a Wall that would prevent aggrieved citizens, from gaining entry

to the portals of Constitutional Court.

5.2. The vehement contention of the learned Senior Panel

Counsel & learned AGA that the claim raised in the petitions is

time barred, need not be deeply examined by this Court, inasmuch

as it is a mixed question of law & facts, and that the factual

situation has to be ascertained by the jurisdictional District

Collector after looking into the record. That is how the Writ Courts

in the country function. That being said, a genuine claim cannot be

negatived by just saying that the claim is time barred; that would

not augur well to constitutionally ordained Welfare State.

Therefore, this aspect of the matter is kept open for consideration

at the hands of the jurisdictional District Collector in the light of

what is being observed hereinafter. For taking this view, support is

gained from the text & context of Collector's letters dated

13.07.2023 and the Central Government's Letters dated 14.03.2022,

21.10.2022 & 29.01.2024. One of these letters, which learned Senior

Panel Counsel very vociferously read out to adumbrate his stand,

would show that timelines are neither static nor inflexible. It is

specifically stated that if claims are put-forth after brooking delay,

the authorities may consider the same, if plausible explanation is

offered therefor and if the same is sanctioned by the Chairman of

National Child Labour Project (NCLP). In any circumstance, delay

& laches cannot be chanted like a mantra to defeat legitimate

claims of citizens.

5.3. The vehement submission of learned AGA that the petitions

are hopelessly time barred and therefore, consistent with the

statutory duty under section 3 of 1963 Act, this Court should

negative the same, does not much impress the Court. As already

mentioned, there is a sea difference, which a blind man too can see

the difference between the doctrine of delay & laches on the one

hand and the law of limitation on the other. Limitation is a factor

left to the domain of legislation. Delay & laches are ordinarily in

the domain of judicial institution. Decisions of Courts, in this

connection, galore in the law reports. His heavy reliance on Surjeet

Singh Sahni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 15 SCC 536 would

not much come to the rescue of his clients, more particularly when

the District Collector himself had addressed a letter dated

13.07.2023 recommending in a way the case of petitioners,

although no specific names do not much figure. Some doubts

relating to the meaning and content of these letters were raised by

the Panel Counsel. Those doubts are nothing but a nonsense on

stilts, to say the least, in view of the collective stand of Central

Government as emerging from the three letters mentioned above.

If there was any doubt, the clarification could have been had by

the Central Government by addressing the District Collector

concerned. That having not been demonstrably done, such a vague

plea cannot be entertained.

5.4. All the above being said, learned counsel for the petitioners

is more than justified in submitting that his clients should not be

relegated to the portals of Civil Courts at once when they did not

have a fair treatment at the hands of answering opposite parties.

The State & its instrumentalities under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India, are expected to conduct themselves as model

or ideal litigants and should not put-forth false, frivolous,

vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of

justice, as observed by the Apex Court in Dilbagh Rai Jarry v.

Union of India, (1974) 3 SCC 554. A worthy cause of a citizen

cannot be turned down by the constitutional Courts by quoting

some jurisprudential theories. Courts are not a happy place where

litigants throng out of joy. They come here with penury at heart,

having been left with no alternative. Courts in general and

Constitutional Court in particular have to be cocksure

unmeritorious cause before turning it down. At the same time, this

Court cannot undertake a deeper examination of the claims, as if it

is the designated authority under the Scheme in question. Added,

the record of case does not have complete facts & figures on the

basis of which a decision could be made by this Court itself, even

otherwise.

In the above circumstances, these petitions are allowed in

part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order

dated 09.06.2025 passed by the District Labour Officer-Cum-

Project Director, National Child Labour Project, Dhenkanal, so far

as W.P.(C) Nos.26890, 26964 & 26981 of 2024 are concerned, and all

the matters are remitted for consideration afresh at the hands of

jurisdictional District Collector keeping all contentions of the

parties open. In the fitness of things, petitioners may submit a set

of papers of the claim along with all evidentiary material to

facilitate their due consideration at the hands of Jurisdictional

District Collector within a period of four (4) weeks to be reckoned

from this day. The Jurisdictional District Collector, after

ascertaining all factual, shall make appropriate report for

recommendation to the Central Government for consideration at

its hand within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. The Central

Government may solicit any information or documents from the

side of implementing agencies and also from the petitioners, if

need be. However, a final decision has to be taken within three (3)

months from the date the Jurisdictional District Collector submits

the recommendation/report.

Costs made easy.

Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 11th day of November, 2025/Basu

Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.