The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1606 OF 2022 (An application under Clause-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent Appeal and Chapter-VIII, Rule-2 of the High Court Rules) ***** Ramesh Chandra Swaro, S/o-Late Damodar Swaro, resident of 11th Line, Gajapati Nagar, Berhampur, Dist-Ganjam -Versus- …… Appellant (1) Berhampur University represented through its Registrar, Bhanja Vihar, Berhampur, Dist.-Ganjam., (2) The Vice Chancellor, Berhampur University, Bhanja Vihar, Berhampur, Dist.-Ganjam (3) The Chancellor, Berhampur University, Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda .…… Respondents Advocates appeared: For Appellant : Mr. Sadasiva Patra, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Purusottam Chuli, CORAM : Advocate
Legal Reasoning
“The Limitation Act would not apply to a petition under Article 226, then, a fortiori, the same principle would apply to miscellaneous applications filed in the writ petitions. This was also the view expressed by a five-Judge Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Teja Singh v. Union Territory, A.I.R. 1982 P & H 169, as stated at page 180. Though this Bench overruled the decision of a three Judge Bench in Ram Kela v. Assistant Director, A.I.R. 1977 P. & H. 87, on the question of applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to a writ proceeding, we are not concerned with that aspect in the present case; and so, it is not required to be examined if despite addition of the Explanation to section 141 of the Code in 1976, the provisions of the Code will apply to a writ proceeding or not, and whether absence of any provision in this Court’s Rules, parallel to rule 32 of the High Court of Punjab & Harayana High Court Rules (which was relied on in the above case to hold that the provisions of the Code would apply despite addition of the Explanation to section 141) would make any difference in this regard.” 4.1. He, therefore, submits that the Limitation Act would not apply to a petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it could not have been made applicable to a proceeding arising out of the writ petition including CMAPL No.123 of 2020. 5. It is further submitted that W.P.(C) No.6043 of 2002 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21st July, 2014. The writ petition was listed in the weekly cause list prepared for the period from 21st July, 2014 to 26th July 2014. But the name of learned counsel for W.A. NO.1606 OF 2022 Page 3 of 8 the Petitioner was not properly reflected in the cause list. Hence, neither the Appellant (Petitioner therein) nor his counsel had any scope to know about listing of the matter. As such, they could not appear when the matter was called. Thereafter, learned counsel for the Petitioner appearing in the writ petition went on by filing repeated memo with an impression that the writ petition is
Arguments
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ---------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 27.11.2025 ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By the Bench; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. W.A. NO.1606 OF 2022 Page 1 of 8 2. This Intra Court Appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 26th October, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CMAPL No.123 of 2020, which was disposed of along with I.A. No.41 of 2020 filed for condonation of delay in filing the CMAPL. 3. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that W.P.(C) No.6043 of 2002 was filed by the Appellant challenging the order No.9437 dated 12th October, 2002 issued by the Chancellor, Berhampur University and order No.15519 dated 29th December, 2001 issued by the Registrar, Berhampur University. Vide order dated 29.12.2001, the Registrar, Berhampur University imposed punishment on the Appellant (Petitioner therein) in a disciplinary proceeding. The said order was confirmed by the Chancellor vide order dated 12th October, 2002. Hence, both the orders were under challenged in the aforesaid writ petition. The writ petition was listed for adjudication on 21st July, 2014. Due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the Petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on the same day. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed CMAPL No.123 of 2020 with a delay of 2001 days. The CMAPL was taken up for consideration on 26th October, 2022 and the impugned order has been passed. 3.1. Learned Single Judge relied upon the case of State of Orissa and Another Vrs. Bishnupriya Routray and Another; 118 (2014) CLT 588. Applying the ratio decided therein, learned Single Judge dismissed the IA for condonation of delay in filing the CMAPL and consequently the CMAPL was also dismissed. W.A. NO.1606 OF 2022 Page 2 of 8 Assailing the said order dated 26th October, 2022, this Intra Court Appeal has been filed. 4. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon the case of Batakrushna Behera and Others Vrs. State of Orissa and Others; 74 (1992) C.L.T. 337, wherein this Court held as under:-
Decision
pending. As the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution by then, it was not listed. Thereafter, the Appellant made an inquiry and came to know about the order dated 21st July 2014 dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution. Obtaining the copy of the order, the CMAPL was filed on 11th February, 2020. In that process, a delay of 2001 days occurred in filing the CMAPL. 6. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge without taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, which was vividly stated in the CMAPL and that the situation was beyond the control of the Appellant, dismissed the I.A. for condonation of delay in filing the CMAPL relying upon the ratio in the case of Bishnupriya Routray (supra). It is submitted that the ratio of the said case is not applicable to the case of the Appellant as the Appellant had no knowledge about dismissal of the writ petition as the name of his Advocates were not reflected in the cause list. He, therefore, submits that the delay occurred in filing the CMAPL was bona fide. The order impugned herein is also cryptic and non- speaking and the same is liable to be set aside and the writ petition be directed to be heard on merit. 7. Dr. Chuli, learned counsel for the Respondents-Berhampur University vehemently objects the submission of Mr. Patra, learned W.A. NO.1606 OF 2022 Page 4 of 8 counsel for the Appellant. It is his submission that Rule-30 of Chapter-VIII was not followed in filing the CMAPL. It is also submitted that the Petitioner was not at all diligent in filing the CMAPL. The delay of 2001 days in filing the CMAPL was not explained properly in the said petition. As such, learned Single Judge relying upon the case of Bishnupriya Routray (supra) rightly dismissed the I.A. for condonation of delay and consequently the CMAPL. In support of his case with regard to diligence of a party in pursuing the matter, he relied upon Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.6843 of 2025 disposed of on 13th May, 2025). He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vrs. Hello Home Education Society; reported in (2024) Vol.1 SCR Page 454. He also relied upon a case law of this Court in Mrinmoy Maity Vrs. Chhanda Koley and Others; reported in (2024) 4 S.C.R. 506 and submits that the Appellant was not at all diligent in pursuing either the writ petition or filing the CMAPL. As such, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the I.A. for condonation of delay so also the CMAPL. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is not disputed that there is a delay of 2001 days in filing the CMAPL. The Appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay along with the petition for CMAPL. 10. Learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the grounds taken in the petition for condonation of delay in filing the CMAPL. He also did not discuss as to the applicability of the ratio W.A. NO.1606 OF 2022 Page 5 of 8 in the case of Bishnupriya Routray (supra) although referred to in his order. 11. It is not disputed by Dr. Chuli, learned counsel for the Respondents that in the weekly cause list prepared for the period from 21st July, 2014 to 26th July, 2014, the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.6043 of 2002 was listed. It is also not disputed that the name of learned counsel appearing for the Appellant (Petitioner therein) was not reflected in the cause list. 11.1. In view of the above, neither the Appellant nor his Counsel had any occasion to know about the listing of the matter. This aspect was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. It, however, appears that there is a delay of 2001 days in filing the CMAPL. The Appellant (Petitioner therein) had also filed I.A. No.41 of 2020 for condonation of delay in filing the CMAPL. In the said CMAPL, he had taken a ground that the Appellant was suffering from various ailments and was become virtually handicapped. The Appellant was all throughout under impression that his case was pending before the Court. The Appellant also stated in the petition for condonation of delay that he contacted Sri N.R. Pandit, learned counsel appearing on his behalf to know about the fate of his case. Mr. Pandit, learned counsel, on inquiry from the Registry, came to know on 19th December, 2019 that the writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution on 21st July, 2014. Thereafter, learned counsel for the Appellant verified the same from the Official Website of High Court of Orissa and came to know that the matter was disposed of on 21st July, 2014. On further inquiry, his counsel could know that W.A. NO.1606 OF 2022 Page 6 of 8 the name of the learned counsel for the Appellant was not correctly reflected in the cause list. Therefore, learned counsel could not know about the listing of the case. 11.2. It also reveals from the record that Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel initially was appointed as counsel to pursue the writ petition on behalf of the Petitioner. Subsequently, it was transferred to Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel and Mr. N.R. Pandit, learned counsel. But their names were not reflected in the cause list although Vakalatnama on behalf of Mr. A.K. Mishra, and Mr. N.R. Pandit was filed. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellant had no occasion to know about either the listing or dismissal of the writ petition. Of course a huge delay occurred in filing the CMAPL. But the length of delay in filing a petition is not the guiding factor to condone the delay. It is the reason for the delay to be considered while adjudicating a petition for condonation of delay. The reason assigned by learned counsel for the Appellant appears to be bona fide. By dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution, the Appellant has lost a valuable right to pursue the writ petition. 13. From the discussions made above, it cannot be stated that the Appellant (Petitioner therein) was not diligent in pursuing his writ petition by engaging Counsel. Due to an omission in reflecting the name of learned counsel in the cause list, the Petitioner could not be represented before the writ Court, when the writ petition was called. The Petitioner should not suffer for the omission on the part of the Registry of this Court. The dismissal of the writ petition W.A. NO.1606 OF 2022 Page 7 of 8 for non-prosecution was largely for the omission of the Registry to mention the name of learned counsel for the Petitioner in the cause list. Three cannot be any quarrel to the ratio decided in the case law relied upon by Dr Chuli, learned counsel for the Respondents. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Appellant (Petitioner therein) was not diligent. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26th October, 2022 passed in CMAPL No.123 of 2020 and I.A. No.41 of 2020 is set aside and the CMAPL is allowed. The writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.6043 of 2002 is restored to file. Registry shall take necessary step to list W.P.(C) No.6043 of 2002 before the assigned Bench. 15. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 27th November, 2025/Himansu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 02-Dec-2025 17:27:14 W.A. NO.1606 OF 2022 Page 8 of 8