[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Gopal Krushna Mohanta vs State Of Odisha And Others on 15 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.245 of 2019
Gopal Krushna Mohanta ..... Appellant
Represented by Adv. -
M/s.Subhasish Mohanty
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Respondents
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
15.04.2026
Order No. I.A. No.429 of 2026
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner files an I.A. in Court
today with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the recall
application bearing I.A. No.875 of 2024. The I.A. is accepted.
Office is directed to register the same.
3. Copy of the I.A. application be served on the learned
counsel for the State.
4. On perusal of the I.A. No.429 of 2026 it appears that the
same has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay in
filing the I.A. No.875 of 2024.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the FAO No.245 of 2019 which was initially filed at the
instance of the Petitioner was disposed of vide order dated
01.03.2019 by passing an ex-parte order. The Hon'ble Division
Bench while disposing of the FAO application vide order dated
01.03.2019 gave liberty to the Petitioner to seek revival of the
same in the event the Appellant feels aggrieved by such order.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that although the FAO was disposed of by passing an
ex-parte order. He further submitted that when such disposal
came to the knowledge of the present Petitioner, he immediately
filed an application bearing I.A. No.875 of 2024 with a prayer
for recall of order dated 17.10.2019. However, there was a
delay of almost five years. He further contended that the FAO
was initially filed by the Petitioner challenging order dated
01.03.2019 passed by the State Executive Tribunal in GIA Case
No.311 of 2016. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
submitted that unless the delay is condoned and the FAO is
restored to file the Petitioner would be seriously Prejudiced. He
further contended that similarly situated persons who had
approached this Court have already been extended with such
benefit. In view of the latest judgment of this Court which was
eventually upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected
to the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay has not
been properly explained by the I.A. Petitioner and the Appellant
in the FAO. On such ground, learned counsel for the State
contended that the application for recalling of order dated
17.10.2019 is unsustainable in law and the same should be
dismissed.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the Parties, on a careful examination of
the background facts. Further taking note of the fact that in
many cases involving similarly situated persons, this Court has
already recalled the order and they have been given opportunity
for consideration of their cases in terms of the order passed in
FAO No.509 of 2014, which was eventually upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to condone the
delay subject to the Petitioner paying a cost of Rs.2,500/-
(rupees two thousand five hundred) to be paid before the
Juvenile Justice Fund managed by the Member Secretary,
Odisha State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties.
10. This I.A. has been filed to recall order dated 17.10.2019
passed in FAO No.245 of 2019. Pursuant to the liberty granted
by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 17.10.2019.
11. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for both sides,
this Court is of the view that issue involved in the present writ
application is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.509 of 2014 decided
vide judgment dated 19.03.2025 and that the same was
erroneously dismissed by following the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Odisha vs. Anup
Kumar Senapati in Civil Appeal No.7295 of 2019 arising out of
SLP(C) No.8343 of 2019. Upon hearing learned counsel
appearing for both sides, this Court is of the view that the matter
requires further examination. Hence, I.A. stands allowed. The
FAO is restored to file.
12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
13. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
Parties that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered
by the judgment of this Court dated 19.03.2025 passed in FAO
No.509 of 2014 and batch.
14. In view of such submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the present FAO is disposed of in the
light of judgment so passed in FAO No.509 of 2014 and batch.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANCE
