[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Batakrishna Nath vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 21 April, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMAPL No.260 of 2025
Batakrishna Nath .... Petitioner
Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC
(for Opp. Nos.1 & 2)
None for O.P. No.3
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
21.04.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
I.A. No.429 of 2025
Order No.
03. 1. The I.A. has been filed for condonation of reported
delay of 564 days in filing the CMAPL. In explaining
the delay, supported by affidavit, the following has
been stated:
"4. That thereafter, without having known about
the factum of dismissal of the said writ petition,
while the Counsel for the petitioner was
bonafidely taking steps to list the matter before
the yet another assigned Bench, very shockingly
he came to know for the first time on 30.06.2025
that the same has been dismissed for non-
prosecution. On the same date i.e. 30.06.2025,
the Counsel for the petitioner applied for the
certified copy of the said order which was
supplied on 09.07.2025.
5. That in view of the above, the delay caused
in filing the CMAPL is not intentional or willful
inasmuch as it will not enure to the benefits of
the petitioner nor to his Counsel. On the other
hand, it will cause enormous prejudice to the
petitioner and defeat the ends of justice for which
he was relentlessly pursing the matter since the
year 2014 in almost all 25 occasions when it
was listed on different dates. But, for the
absence of his Counsel on the single occasion on
02.01.2024, the petitioner may not be so heavily
punished by dismissing his writ petition without
any adjudication on merits.
6. That in the above premises, the delay in filing
the present CMAPL may be condoned by taking a
sympathetic view to ensure substantial justice
instead of depriving the same to the petitioner
bearing in mind the celebrated principle that
when hyper-technicalities and substantial justice
are pitted against each other, then substantial
justice should be preferred to avoid defeat of the
ends of justice. Furthermore, by condoning the
delay, since no third party is going to be affected,
the present I.A. deserves to be allowed in order to
adjudicate the long standing grievance of the
petitioner on merit which was pending before this
Hon'ble Court for more than 10 years. Hence this
petition."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner highlights
the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen, now aged
about 77 years and his case must be considered
sympathetically. It is further submitted that State
being an ideal employer, the case of an employee
working in a College should be considered
sympathetically, who seeks for Career Advancement
Benefits in the scale of Reader as the petitioner has
retired as a Lecturer in English from Anandapur
College, Anandapur.
3. The learned Additional Standing Counsel though
in principle opposes the prayer for condonation of
delay but he takes a fair stand in response to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner considering the age of the petitioner, it
should be treated sympathetically.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned ASC, prayer for condonation of delay is
allowed.
5. I.A. is favoured and disposed of.
6. The CMAPL has been filed for restoration of
W.P.(C) No.15999/2014, which was dismissed for non-
prosecution by order of the co-ordinate Bench dated
02.01.2024.
7. In view of the notification of the Orissa High
Court in the administrative side dated 08.05.2025, the
matter has been listed before this Bench, the subject
matter being within the determination of this Bench.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. Issue notice along with this order.
10. The learned Additional Standing Counsel upon
advance copy served appears and waives notice on
behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Notice be issued to the opposite party no.3 along
with this order by Speed Post with registration and
proof of delivery.
Requisites for issuance of notice to O.P. No.3 be
filed within seven working days.
11. List after S.R. Liberty to mention.
The learned ASC is apprised of the order dated
02.02.2026, wherein he was requested to obtain
instruction from the Director, Higher Education as to
why the opposite party no.3 is not responding to the
notice issued earlier by order of the coordinate Bench
dated 13.10.2025.
Copy of the order shall be served on the learned
ASC.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Radha
