Dismissed

State of Orissa v. Narendra Ku.Das

Orissa HC18 May 2016FAO/52/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous application filed by the State to condone a delay of 1914 days in filing an appeal against a judgment of the State Education Tribunal, the Court applied Supreme Court precedents holding that the impersonal nature of the Government does not excuse delay. Finding the explanation of bureaucratic red tape and procedural formalities insufficient as no bona fide effort was shown, the

What did the court decide?

The misc. case is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Government is an imperson al machinery. Thus latitude is permissible in which Government is a litigant. He further submi ts that the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. D elay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. Hence the same be condoned.

In Office of the Chief Post Master & Others Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ano ther, (2012) 3 SCC 563, after survey of the earlier decisions, the apex Court in paragraphs 27 , 28, 29 and 30 held as follows:-

27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the i ssues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way o f filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate p eriod of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with cou rt proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a questi on why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when ther e was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession h as to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circ umstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on acc ount of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes ca nnot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limit ation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay a nd there was bona fide 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 ensure that they pe rform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and sho uld not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyon e under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department f or the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

That the judgment in G.I.A. Case No.39/2008 was pronounced by the State Education Tribunal on 2.9.2010. It is humbly submitted that pursuant to pronouncement of judgment, the learned Stand ing Counsel, State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar communicated the copy of the judgment to th e District Education Officer, Puri and the same was received by the D.E.O., Puri on 16.9.11. T he D.E.O., Puri after receipt of the copy of the judgment submitted a detail report about the concerned case to the Director, Secondary Education requesting therein to issue necessary inst ruction with regard to implementation of the order passed by the learned State Education Tribu nal.

That while matter stood thus the Joint Secretary to Government in the Department of School and Mass Education issued a letter to the District Education Officer, Puri bearing letter dtd.24. 8.15, wherein the Joint Secretary to Government issued necessary instruction to the DEO, Puri to challenge the order in appeal before the Honble High Court in consultation with learned Sr. Standing Counsel, S & M.E. Cell, Cuttack.

That it is humbly submitted that the DEO, Puri after receipt of necessary instruction from the Government in the Department of School & Mass Education with regard to filing of appeal again st the order dtd.2.9.2010 passed in G.I.A. Case No.39 of 2008 came to the office of the Sr. St

anding Counsel on 16.12.15, the D.E.O., Puri discussed the case with the learned Sr. Standing Counsel and the learned Sr. Standing Counsel advised the DEO, Puri to arrange necessary papers such as the certified copy of the order passed in G.I.A. Case No.39/2008, the petition filed in GIA Case and other relevant documents for drafting of appeal.

That the District Education Officer, Puri after collecting necessary documents with regard to GIA Case as stated above came to the office of the Sr. Standing Counsel on 21.1.2016. The Stan ding Counsel, S & M.E. Cell, Cuttack drafted the Memorandum of Appeal on 21.1.16 and it was ma de ready for filing, hence the same was presented on 28.1.2016.

That it is humbly and respectfully submitted that the delay caused for filing of FAO is bonafi de, unintentional and not willful, on the other hand the delay caused for filing of the appeal is due to observation of the official formalities.

By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the grounds stated in the ap plication for condonation of delay constitute sufficient cause. No cause much less any suffici ent cause has been shown in not filing the appeal in time. The misc. case is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.

State of Orissa v. Narendra Ku.Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Narendra Ku.Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Kumar Behera Vs State of Orissa

Mc of Kalinga High School Vs State of Orissa

Prasanna Ku.Mohanty Vs Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd.

Binod Kumar Hati Vs State of Odisha

Kalakar Vs B.G.Bank

Swarnalata Dei Vs State of Odisha