[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Ram Chandra Swain on 16 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.53 of 2014
State of Odisha ..... Appellant(s)
Mr. N. Moharana, SC for
Vigilance
-versus-
Ram Chandra Swain ..... Respondent(s)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
16.01.2026
Order No. M.C. No.45 of 2014 and CRLLP No.53 of 2014
06.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2. The M.C. No. 45 of 2014 is an application for
condonation of delay of 378 days in filing the CRLLP
No.53 of 2014 seeking leave to appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge
(Vigilance), Balangir in T.R. Case No.09 of 2011.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Vigilance
Department appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the opposite party.
4. On a close reading of the application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, it is found that the application
Digitally Signed discloses any sufficient cause or explanation for not
Location: OHC preferring the CRLLP within the prescribed period.
Date: 22-Jan-2026 17:37:18
5. Relevant averments appearing at paragraph 2 of the
application read:
"That for the purpose of filing an
appeal against acquittal, the file has to be
routed through different departments of the
State which requires considerable time to
take a final decision by different
departments of the State whether leave
application to file appeal against the
acquittal shall be filed against the
order/judgment."
6. Placing strong reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of J. & K. & Ors. Vs.
Mohmad Maqbool Sofi & Ors.: 1wherein delay of 97 days
in filing Letters Patent Appeal was condoned, it is
contended by the learned counsel for the Vigilance
Department that for the purpose of filing of an appeal by
the Government, the file has to be routed through
different departments of the State which requires some
time to take a final decision as to whether the appeal
should be filed. Therefore, delay in filing of application or
appeal by the State should be liberally condoned.
7. However, in the present case, there has been
inordinate delay of 378 days in filing the CRLLP. In
explaining that there was sufficient cause for not filing the
CRLLP in time, vague averment has been made that the
file has to be routed through different departments of the
State. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors.
-vrs.- Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2, it has been held:
"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
bona fide 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
Digitally Signed us, the Department has miserably failed to
Reason: Authentication give any acceptable and cogent reasons
Location: OHC
Date: 22-Jan-2026 17:37:18
sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay."
8. Thus, State and its instrumentalities are also
required to satisfy that there was reasonable and
acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona
fide effort towards filing of an application or appeal in
time. The Government departments are under a special
obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with
diligence and commitment. Law of limitation is equally
applicable to all the litigants including the Government.
In the present case, absolutely no endeavour has been
made to explain the delay or to show sufficient cause for
not filing the appeal in time.
9. In such view of the matter, there is absolutely no
scope to entertain the prayer for condonation of delay in
filing the CRLLP which is hopelessly barred by limitation.
10. Accordingly, the Misc. Case is dismissed.
Consequently, the CRLLP is also dismissed as barred by
limitation.
Digitally Signed Judge
Gitanjali
