The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO NO.114 of 2021 Managing Committee of Balam High School ..... Appellant State of Odisha & Others ..... -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. D. Routray, Adv. Respondents Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 12.07.2024 Order No.3 I.A. NO.696 of 2023 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. This Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1046 days in filing the appeal in question. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dtd.24.04.2018 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A Case No.1021 of 2012. . 4. It is contended that due to communication gap with the conducting counsel and some practical difficulty, the matter got delayed and could not be filed within the period of limitation. However, the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and rather bona fide one. Stand taken Para 3 & 4 of the I.A reads as follows: 3. That the impugned judgment was passe don 24.04.2018 and the Petitioners were all along vigilant right from the date of filing of the case but unfortunately due to some communication gap with the counsel engaged by the appellants they could not get the information about the pronouncement of the judgment. And in the meantime the principal in charge of the School in question was transferred to another aided high School and because of such transfer ad other difficulties the appeal was not preferred within the prescribed limitation period. of 4. That after pronouncement the impugned judgment on 24.04.2018 by the learned State Education Tribunal one of the appellant visited the chamber of the counsel from where they got to know that the counsel engaged by them had made all attempts to contact the Petitioner to inform about the disposal of such case but the lawyer could not contact the appellant but during discussion with his lawyer he found that there is some miscommunication about the disposal of the case and he obtained the certified copy of the order from his lawyer and immediately came to Cuttack on 01.05.2021 to file an appeal and accordingly the appeal was drafted in the lawyer’s office and the same was filed on 04.05.2021. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that the delay in filing the appeal has not been . properly explained by showing sufficient cause and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr. ((2012) 3 SCC 563) and the decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021), the delay is not required to be condoned. 4.1. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 27 and 29 of the Judgment in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. has held as follows:- “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. that unless 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities 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 their duties with diligence and perform commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” benefit the for . 4.2. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors in Para -5 has held as follows:- “5. The Supreme Court has recently in a series of matters reiterated that the explanation usually offered by the State and its entities for the delay on account of administrative exigencies should not be accepted unless they are shown to be justified. A sampling of such orders is as under: (i) Order dated 13th January 2021 in SLP No.17559 of 2020 (State of Gujarat v. Tushar Jagdish Chandra Vyas & Anr.) (ii) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP No.11989 of 2020 (The Commissioner of Public Instruction & Ors. v. Shamshuddin) (iii) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP No.25743 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Sabha Narain & Ors.) (iv) Order dated 4th February 2021 in SLP No.19846 of 2020 (Union of India v. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors) (v) Order dated 11th January 2021 in SLP No.22605 of 2020 (The State of Odisha & Ors v. Sunanda Mahakuda)” 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court does not find any sufficient cause pleaded by the appellant for condoning the delay in question. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the I.A. accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge . 04. FAO No.114 of 2021 1. Sine this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Judge ( BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) P.T.O sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 12-Jul-2024 18:38:03 .