The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.556 of 2023 Gopabandhu Dash & Anr. …. Appellants Dr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ….
Legal Reasoning
Respondents Mr. S. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 02. I.A. No. 1021 of 2023
Decision
ORDER 08.02.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 3. This application has filed seeking condonation of delay of 1352 days in filing the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the claim of the Appellants was rejected by the Tribunal vide Judgment dtd.27.01.2020 in GIA Case No. 156 of 2018. Appellants after obtaining the certified copy on 28.03.2022 filed Writ Petition No. 30567 of 2022 instead of filing an appeal in terms of the provisions contained under Sec. 24-C of the Odisha Education Act. It is contended that this Court vide order dd.24.04.2023 while disposing // 2 // the writ petition granted liberty to the Appellants to file the appeal. In terms of the said liberty, the present appeal was filed on 11.12.2023. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that since the present appeal was filed in terms of the liberty granted by this Court on 24.04.2023, the delay in filing the appeal is required to be condoned. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that after passing of the order by the Tribunal on 27.01.2020, Appellants obtained the certified copy on 28.01.2022. But the writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 30567 of 2022 was only filed on 14.11.2022. Even though this Court vide order dtd.24.04.2023 granted liberty to file the appeal, but the same was only filed on 11.12.2023. No explanation has been given by the Appellants with regard to the delay in filing the writ petition for around 10 months and delay of around 7 months in filing the appeal after disposal of the writ petition with liberty to file the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Tribunal disposed of the matter vide Judgment dtd.27.01.2020. Even though the Appellant obtained the certified copy on 28.01.2022, but the writ petition against such an order was filed on 14.11.2022. Thereafter, vide order dtd.24.04.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 30567 of 2022, Petitioner though was granted liberty to file the appeal against the Judgment passed by the Tribunal on 27.01.2020, but the appeal was only filed on 11.12.2023. Since no sufficient cause has been assigned with regard to delay for the period from 28.01.2022 to 14.11.2022 and 24.04.2023to 11.12.2023, this Court Page 2 of 4 // 3 // placing reliance on 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) is inclined to condone the delay. 6.1. 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 the merely because Government is a party before us. the Government or a wing of 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.” 6.2. Similarly this Court in the case of Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack- II 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: Page 3 of 4 // 4 // (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) in SLP Order dated 22nd January 2021 No.25743 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Sabha Narain & Ors.) in SLP Order dated 4th February 2021 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)” 7. 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 Appellants for condoning the delay in question. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the I.A accordingly. 03. FAO No.556 of 2023 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Feb-2024 19:53:32 Sneha (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 4 of 4