The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.486 of 2022 Dr. Nilamadhab Sahu …. Appellant Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Respondents State Counsel COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 23.08.2024 I.A. No.748 of 2022 Order No 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and learned State Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 3. This Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1073 days in filing the appeal in question. 4. It is contended that even though the GIA case was disposed of on 04.11.2019, but due to illness of the staff of the institution who is looking after the case and the prevailing situation arising out of COVID-19, Appellant could not take immediate step to file the appeal and file the appeal only on 12.12.2022. It is also contended that the delay in filing the appeal is protected in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo-Moto W.P.(C) No.3 of // 2 // 2020. Accordingly, it is contended that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate rather it is bonafide one. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondents contended that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by showing sufficient cause 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 the decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021), the delay is not required to be condoned. 5.1. This Court after going through the grounds taken in the Petition finds that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by showing sufficient cause 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 the decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021), the delay is not required to be condoned. 5.2. 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 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // merely because Government is a party before us. the Government or a wing of the they have for several months/years due 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities reasonable and acceptable that unless 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 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.” 5.3. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors in Para -5 has held as follows:- “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: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 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)” Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 5.4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also contended that Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo-Moto W.P.(C) No.3 of 2020 and vide Order dated 10.01.2022 directed to exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. But in the case in hand the limitation period prescribed had already expired by 15.03.2020 and the appeal was only filed on 12.12.2022. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court does not find any sufficient cause pleaded by the Appellant for condoning the delay in question. Not only that since the period of limitation had already expired by 15.03.2020, in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo-moto W.P.(C) No.3 of 2020, the appeal should have been filed immediately after 28.02.2022. But the appeal was only filed on 12.12.2022. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the I.A accordingly. 04. FAO No.486 of 2022 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dtd.04.11.2019 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in GIA Case No.361 of 2014. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 3. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Basudev (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Aug-2024 16:53:50 Page 5 of 5