The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.528 of 2016 State Of Orissa & Anr. ..... Appellants Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA Nepal Ch. Patel & Ors. -versus- .....
Legal Reasoning
Respondents Mr. S. Samal, Advocate & Associates THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 12.07.2024 Order No. 03 Misc. Case No. 848 of 2016 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Appellants. 3. This Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 941 days in filing the appeal against Judgment dt.26.12.2013 so passed in GIA Case No. 136 of 2011 by the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (in short Tribunal). 4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Appellants contended that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to official procedure and intra departmental communications made by the Department. It is also contended that because of such procedural latches, the delay has occurred and it is not bonafide one. 4.1. It is also contended that with regard to delay in filing the appeal, stand taken by the Appellants in Para 2 to 4 of the interim application be treated as sufficient ground for such condonation of delay. Para 2 to 4 of the Misc. Case are reproduced hereunder :- Page 1 of 4. “2. That, the statutory provisions of Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 requires for filing of Appeal within 60 days from the date of passing of the judgment. But in the present GIA case the learned Tribunal passed the judgment dated 26.12.2013 photocopy of which was received in the Appellant No. 1's office on 17.02.2014 from the Respondent No. 1 through a representation requesting to comply with Court's Order. After receipt of the photo copy of the impugned judgment the Administrative Branch in the office of the Appellant No. 1 processed relevant file on 01.03.2014 suggesting to obtain memorandum from the Director, Higher Education in the matter. Such delay in processing the file was due to the fact that the Administrative Branch in the Office of the Appellant No. 1 was busy with attending the Assembly business and also attending the pre-budget scrutiny works of the Deptt. in respect of Non-Govt. aided colleges of the State. However, vide letter No. 7125/HE dtd. 21.03.2014, the Director, Higher Education was requested to submit the memorandum showing eligibility of the Respondent No. 1 so far as relief granted in his favour is concerned. On 09.06.2016 when the present Appellant No. 1 received notice in Execution Case filed by the Respondent No. 1 before the Ld. Tribunal for implementation of order passed in GIA Case, Director, Higher Education was requested vide Letter No. 15105/HE dtd. 09.06.2016 to submit memorandum as asked earlier for making further progress in the matter. In response, Director, Higher Education called for relevant service record of the Respondent and verified the services of such respondent during the month of July, 2016. He submitted his report in shape of memorandum vide letter No. 26715 dtd. 26.07.2016 which was received in the administrative branch on after diary on 01.08.2016 delay in submission of required report from the level of Director, Higher Education the said quarter has been requested vide Letter No. 26103/HE dtd. 16.09.2016 to furnish reason for such inordinate delay in communicating his response. Appropriate action shall be taken after receipt of response from the Director, Higher Education in this regard. 3. That, the relevant file dealing with the subject was processed on 04.08.2016 in the Administrative Branch of the Department examining the claim of the Respondent and such file was endorsed to the Law Officer of the Department to communicate his views in the matter. The Law Officer endorsed the file to the Deputy Secretary who is the Branch Officer suggesting to seek the opinion of Law Department on the question of filing FAO. On 08.08.2016 the Deputy Secretary endorsed the file to Principal Secretary who approved the proposal and passed order to present physical file after placing all the required documents. The Administrative Branch put up the file on 09.08.2016 complying the observations of Principal Secretary. On the same day the file was endorsed to Law Department. Page 2 of 4. 4. That, the Law Deptt. returned the file on 23.08.2016 conveying their sanction for challenging the orders/judgment dtd.26.12.2013 passed in GIA Case No. 136/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by filing FAO such file was received in the Appellant No. 1's office on 25.08.2016.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on the other hand contended that delay of 941 days has not been explained properly 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 decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021), delay is not required to be condoned. 5.1. 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. 29. 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 5.2. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors in Para -5 has held as follows:- Page 3 of 4. “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: Order dated 13th January 2021 in SLP No.17559 of 2020 (State of Gujarat v. Tushar Jagdish Chandra Vyas & Anr.) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP No.11989 of 2020 (The Commissioner of Public Instruction & Ors. v. Shamshuddin) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP No.25743 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Sabha Narain & Ors.) Order dated 4th February 2021 in SLP No.19846 of 2020 (Union of India v. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors) Order dated 11th January 2021 in SLP No.22605 of 2020 (The State of Odisha & Ors v. Sunanda Mahakuda)” (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 6. Having heard learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Appellants and placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court does not find any sufficient cause pleaded by the Appellants for condoning the delay in question. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the Misc. Case accordingly. 09. FAO No.528 of 2016 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Sine this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jul-2024 19:03:58 Sneha Page 4 of 4.