The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25669 of 2024 State of Odisha and others …. Petitioners Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC Yudhisthira Barik …. Opp. Party -versus-
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 19.09.2025 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the State of Odisha and others challenging the order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.2850 of 2018 in directing that the pay of the opposite party-Yudhisthira Barik be revised and the last pay be determined and accrued consequential arrears be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It appears from the impugned order that the said order was forwarded to all concerned. It further appears that there is inordinate delay of six years in approaching this Court challenging the impugned order. In pursuance of the order dated 19.05.2025, learned counsel for the State has filed an affidavit of Asst. Page 1 of 9 Conservator of Forest, Balangir Forest Division, Bolangir, which is taken on record. Nearly half a century back, His Lordship Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in the case of Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh -Vrs.- Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. reported in (1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 578, had held that Article 226 of the Constitution is not a blanket power, regardless of temporal and discretionary restraints and if a party is inexplicably insouciant and unduly belated due to laches, the Court may ordinarily deny the redress. The legal world is well-versed to a principle that every litigant must be conscious, active and vigilant for enforcement of his rights. The law protects the vigilant litigants and not the ones who sleep over their rights, the essence of which is reflected in the Latin maxim ‘vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt‟. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board -Vrs.- T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the effect of laches in litigation and held as follows: in mind “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure that it Page 2 of 9 or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the Page 3 of 9 writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” In the case of Mrinmoy Maity -vrs.- Chhanda Koley and others : A.I.R. 2024 S.C. 2717 : 2024 LiveLaw SC 318, where an application under Article 226 had been filed by an applicant for grant of LPG distributorship after a delay of four years challenging the selection of a rival applicant, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been nonsuited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. 10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There Page 4 of 9 may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled. 11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and laches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be nonsuited. If it is found that the writ Petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. This Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal and others -vrs.- State of W.B and others reported in (2009) 1 S.C.C. 768 has held to the following effect: “56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary Page 5 of 9 jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. refusing exercise 57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest opportunity. possible reasonably Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground such to for discretionary The jurisdiction. underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969]). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110], Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84]). 58. There is no upper limit and there is Page 6 of 9 no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of court facts before depending on and varying from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose.” the In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil –Vrs. Executive Engineer reported in (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 448, it is held as follows:- in and “31. It is true that when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for governmental for citizen authorities. The Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the filing appeals or Government applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the to suggest respondent was made collusion and fraud but without any the basis. We entertain cannot Page 7 of 9 submission made across without foundation in the pleadings.” the Bar there being any proper In the case of Chief Post Master General -Vrs.- Living Media India Ltd. Reported in (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563, it is held as follows:- “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved the prescribed period of including 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.” In the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera -Vrs.- State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 52, it has been held as follows:- “Merely because the respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanical considered and in absence of „sufficient cause‟, delay shall not be condoned.” It appears that petitioners have taken their own sweet time to challenge the order and in the affidavit filed by the Asst. Conservator of Forest, the State failed to substantiate Page 8 of 9 the cause of delay in approaching this Court. In view of the settled principle of law as enumerated above, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Since the opposite party has not been noticed in this case, the copy of the order be communicated to the opposite party by the Registry. Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (S.S. Mishra) Pravakar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2025 16:50:40 Page 9 of 9