The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK LAA No. 113 of 2019 Director, Interim Test Range, Chandipur ….. Ganesh Ch. Behera and others ….. Vs. Appellant
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B. Maharana, CGC Respondents Mr. K.K. Rath, Advocate (for O.P. No.1) CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 11.01.2023 I.A. No.243 of 2022 and LAA No.113 of 2019 The matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Order No. 04. 2. As pointed out by the office, there is a delay of 2280 days in filing the present Appeal. 3. Mr. Maharana, learned CGC submits that though actually there is a delay of 442 days in filing the present Appeal, because of late deposit of deficit Court Fee on 11.11.2022, the Stamp Reporter has pointed out that there is a delay of 2280 days and the delay should be condoned as same is neither deliberate nor intentional on the part of the Appellant. Rather, because of resorting to certain official/consultative processes in obtaining the approval of the Government, so also due to misplace of concerned record, inadvertently a delay was caused in preferring the present Appeal. Page 1 of 4 4. Though copy of the I.A. is yet to be served on the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but Mr. Rath, vehemently opposes to the prayer for condonation of delay and submits that in terms of judgments of this Court, so also the Apex Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, the application for condonation, so also Memorandum of Appeal deserve to be dismissed. When the matter was listed on 22.12.2022, Mr. Rath, referring to the judgment passed by coordinate Bench in LAA No.11 of 2020, also opposed to admission of the present Appeal, so also condonation of delay. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order dated 22.12.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference. the that an impugned further submits identical Appeal “5. He pertaining to the present Appellant has already been dismissed by coordinate Bench and after dismissal of the Appeal judgment has already been implemented by the present Appellant. To substantiate his submission, he files copy of the Order dated 01.12.2021, passed in case of Director, Interim Test Range, Chandipur v. Ashok Senapati and others in L.A.A. No.11 of 2020 after serving copy of the same on Mr. Moharana, which be kept on record. 6. Mr. Moharana prays for some time to examine the said Order passed by the coordinate Bench and to have his say in the said regard.” 5. Mr. Maharana, learned CGC, on whom a copy of the said judgment was served by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submits that though the land in question in LAA No.11 of 2020 belongs to same Mouza and is of same Kissam, but the location of the land is one of the decisive factor for determining/enhancing the compensation amount. Page 2 of 4 6. From the pleadings made in the I.A. the reasons assigned for condonation of delay seems to be not convincing. 7. The apex Court in case of Office of the Chief Post Master General & Others (supra) observed as under: “12) 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. the absence of plausible and acceptable In explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government is a party before us. the Government or a wing of Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. their bodies, agencies 13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the and government instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide 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 Page 3 of 4 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 us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” reasons sufficient 8. Also, in view of the recent judgment/order of this Court in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), which has been passed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 84, submission made by the learned Counsel for the Parties and the reasons assigned above, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay. 9. Accordingly, the I.A. as well as the Appeal stand dismissed. Padma (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE Page 4 of 4