Dismissed

State of Orissa v. Sarada Kanta Routray

Orissa HC10 Aug 2016FAO/86/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for condonation of delay filed by the State of Orissa and the Director of Higher Education to challenge an order of the State Education Tribunal. The appeal was filed with a delay of 637 days. The Court held that official processing delays and bureaucratic red-tape do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for condonation of delay for filing the appeal was dismissed; the appeal stands dismissed.

3. 10.8.2016 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging an order dated 26.3.2013 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Bh ubaneswar in GIA Case No. 271 of 2011.

2. As provided in Section 24 (C) of Orissa Education Act, 1968, the appeal has to be preferred within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of the judgment. In the inst ant case, the order having been passed on 26.3.2013, the memorandum of appeal before this Cour t has been presented on 12.2.2015 i.e. after delay of 637 days. The explanation with regard to the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time have been placed at para nos. 2 to 7 o f the petition.

First of all it is stated that the matter could only be known from the memoran dum reflecting eligibility of such respondents sent by the appellant no 2, the Director of Hig her Education vide his letter dated 18.1.2014 and thereafter the process began by calling for necessary documents and report from different quarters. This clearly indicates that the Direct or of Higher Education, appellant no. 2 was aware of the judgment prior to dispatch of the mem orandum. When the matter was being fought out before Tribunal, it is however not stated as to what other reports and documents were so necessary for examination afresh.

Next the averment remains that certain documents were not found and then the c oncerned College authorities were contacted whereafter further process was made in the departm ent and finally taking the view of the Law Department, the proposal was sent to the office of the learned Advocate General whereafter the approval was accorded for filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and it has so occurred because of the time consumed in the official process. So he urges for condonation of delay.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 reiterating the averments in the obje ction and placing reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Office of the Chief Post Master & Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. & another; (2012) 3 SCC 563 as also of this Court in case of State of Orissa and another vs. Smt. Bishnupriya Routray and another in FAO 8 6 of 2013 and State of Orissa and others vs. Khirod Chandra Mohapatra; 2015 (II) ILR Cutttack 207 contends that the explanations in similar lines which were provided in those cases for con siderable delay in support of contention for condonation have not been accepted as sufficient cause. So he urges for rejection of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

4. 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 there w as 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 circumsta nces, 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.

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 del ay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the fi le 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 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 ever yone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

ed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. This sufficient cause as projected in the application for condonation of delay basically rests on the consumption of the time for processing the file. However, those do not go to show that the matter had been dealt with diligence and minimum promptitude and in spite of that the delay took place for some unavoidable circumstances beyond control. Merely saying that the delay was caused in the official processing of file and thus is no deliberate latche s of willful negligence on the part of the petitioner in not filing the appeal in time, does n ot suffice the purpose. The ground does not contain any acceptable or plausible reasons and th ose are wholly lacking in the case. Therefore, testing the present case through the spectrum o f the ratio of the judgment in Office of the Chief Post Master & Others (supra) and other deci sions (supra), this Court finds that the prayer for condonation of delay merits no considerati on.

State of Orissa v. Sarada Kanta Routray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Sarada Kanta Routray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Pitambar Vs Santi

M.C. of Panchayat High School,Budhabahal,Bolangir Vs State of Odisha

Sanghamitra Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Bhubaneswar School Vs Secy.,Health and F.W.

Pradeep Ku.Satpathy Vs State of Odisha

M.C.of Bhagabati Mata Ucha Vidyapitha Vs State of Orissa