The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.233 of 2018 In the matter of an application under Chapter-VIII, Rule 23 of Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. State of Orissa & others ……. Review Petitioners -Versus- Managing Committee of Khatkurbahal High School ……. Opposite Party For the Review Petitioners: Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, Additional Government Advocate For the Opposite Party : M/s. Mahendra Kumar Sahoo, S. Pradhan and S.K. Mishra, Advocates CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
16.03.2018 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.284 of 2017 in F.A.O. No.155 of 2017, whereby the application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal has been turned down, as a consequence the appeal has been dismissed. 2. Heard Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel for the Opposite Party. 3. The petitioners have filed the Review Petition primarily on the merits of the case although the appeal has been dismissed only on the ground of delay. The learned State Education Tribunal vide a detailed judgment dated 26.08.2013 allowed the application of the opposite party made under Section 24-B of The Orissa Education Act, 1969 as amended (up to date). The limitation period prescribed for filing the Appeal against the said judgment dated 26.08.2013 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is 60 days. However, the petitioners have filed the First Appeal after inordinate delay of 1299 days. Along with the First Appeal, the petitioners had moved an application for condonation of delay. The primary ground for condonation of delay urged by the petitioners is that Page 2 of 6 the Department was unaware of the judgment of the learned State Education Tribunal dated 26.08.2013. Therefore, the appeal suffered delay. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the said contention has, inter alia, arrived at the following conclusion: “6. The appellants were contesting the proceeding before the Education Tribunal. So it is not permissible to say that they were not aware of the result of the proceeding at the time of its conclusion. The Tribunal was under no legal obligation to send a copy of its judgment to the appellants as the concept of communication is not provided in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Nothing is stated as to which documents had gone without being examined, during the pendency of the original proceeding giving rise to further need for collection of those for further examination in order to take a decision in the matter of filing the appeal. The appellants are found to have not acted promptly even after receipt of the information about result of the case and have rather dealt it in casual manner. The time consumed in the total process is stretching for a period of about three years and six months. The explanations are rather casual and do not at all appear to be satisfactory. Therefore, testing the present case through the spectrum of the ratio of the decision in case of Office of the Chief Post Master & Others (supra) and other decisions referred to therein, this Court finds no justification to prima facie say that sufficient causes stood on the way of filing the appeal late, i.e., after lapse of about three years and six months from the date of expiry of the period of filing the appeal so as to entertain the petition.” 4. The learned Single Judge by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master & Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. & another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, has arrived at a conclusion that the cause offered by the Page 3 of 6 petitioners to explain the delay is not sufficient cause. Hence, the inordinate delay of 1299 days cannot be condoned. Obviously, therefore the learned Single Judge of this Court did not advert to the merit of the case in the Appeal. 5. This Court is of the view that in light of the principles enunciated in the judgment of Office of the Chief Post Master & Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. & another (supra), where it was emphasized that mere procedural red-tape and vague explanations do not constitute valid grounds for condoning inordinate delays, the bench reiterate that government bodies and their instrumentalities are under an elevated duty to discharge their responsibilities with diligence and efficiency. The law is impartial and must extend its protections equally to all, without being manipulated for the convenience of specific entities. 6. The petitioners have filed the present Review Petition seeking recall of the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal against the judgment of the learned State Education Tribunal. Surprisingly, the present Review Petition is also delayed by more than Page 4 of 6 225 days. Therefore, the application being I.A. No.267 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioners in the present Review Petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition. In the said application for condonation of delay as well, no cause has been shown much less “sufficient cause” to explain the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgement in the matter of MOOL CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR., 2024 INSC 577 have held thus- “It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.” The petitioners-State neither at the stage of filing the First Appeal could offer sufficient cause explaining the delay of 1299 days nor could even explain the delay of 225 days in filing the present Review Petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused by the petitioners to file the Review Petition in the absence of any explanation causing huge delay of 225 days. It is well known in law that litigant who sleep over his rights shall not get favour of the Court, which explained in Page 5 of 6 the maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt", which means "The law assists only those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights," aptly applies in the present case, as the petitioners have failed to act diligently and vigilantly in pursuing their legal remedies in time. The grounds urged by the petitioners to seek review of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.03.2018 is not even covered under Order 47 of CPC. Therefore, on the ground of delay as well as on merit, the Review Petition fails being devoid of merits. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No.267 of 2018 filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition is rejected. Consequently, the Review Petition is dismissed. …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 29th January, 2025/A.K. Kar, ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASISH KUMAR KAR Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Feb-2025 12:19:43 Page 6 of 6
Arguments
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 27.01.2025 : Date of Judgment: 29.01.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. In the present Review Petition the petitioners-State of Orissa, Department of School & Mass Education have assailed the order dated