Remanded

dhanmati naik v. collector,bargarh

Orissa HC3 Aug 2016WP(C)/11413/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court found that the Sub-Collector casually handled the limitation issue by accepting a medical certificate without considering the applicant's indulgence in delay. The matter has been remanded to the Sub-Collector for disposal afresh.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is remanded to the learned Sub-Collector, Padampur for disposal afresh on merits, taking into consideration the question of limitation properly.

The appellate order passed by the learned Sub-Collector, Padampur in Rev. Misc. Appe al Case No.2 of 2013 is impugned in this writ petition, mainly on two grounds (1) the questio n of limitation has not been properly dealt with by the learned Sub-Collector, Padampur in the impugned order; and (2) after the order passed by the Collector on 18.09.2006 pursuant to the order passed in W.P. (C) No.15146 of 2005, holding the genuineness of the Residential Certifi cate issued in favour of the petitioner, question of appeal by opposite party no.5 does not ar ise.

So far as the second question is concerned, against the aforesaid order of the Colle ctor, Bargarh, opposite party no.5 had preferred W.P. (C) No.13105 of 2006. Said writ petitio n was disposed of on 09.02.2009 upholding the aforesaid order of the Collector, but giving opp ortunity to opposite party no.5 to work out her remedy in accordance with law for getting the Residential Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner cancelled. In view of such positio n and fact, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no meri t.

So far as the first question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is con cerned, it is found from the impugned order that the learned Sub-Collector, Padampur has dealt with the question of limitation in a very casual manner and has accepted the Medical Certific ate filed by opposite party no.5 as genuine. He has not taken into consideration the indulgen ce of opposite party no.5 in moving this Court thrice, in participating in the proceeding befo re the Collector, Bargarh and sitting silent over the matter after the final order was passed in W.P. (C) No.13105 of 2006.

It is well settled in law that, if in a particular statute limitation is prescribed, the law of limitation is to be strictly adhered to subject to the condition that the delay in filing any application can be condoned, if the applicant is able to explain each days delay.

In the present case, delay of about eight years has occurred. Only on the basis of a Medical Certificate, such delay is shown to have been condoned. Taking into consideration such aspect, the matter is remanded back to the learned Su b-Collector, Padampur for disposal afresh on merit, taking into consideration the question of limitation properly at its proper perspective. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub-Collector, Padampur on 26.08.2016. The matter be disposed of as expeditiously as possible , preferably within four months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties are f ree to canvass any other grounds also, if so advised and fresh findings be also given on the q uestion of facts.

dhanmati naik v. collector,bargarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

dhanmati naik v. collector,bargarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mali Samaj Bikash Vs State and Ors.

Rana Samaj Kikash Vs State and Ors.

Sukanto@Sukanta Mandal Vs State of Orissa

Ramitav Mishra Vs Cuttack Development Authority

Sakaleswar Dash Vs Jayaram Dash

Santanu Kumar Pal Vs Bank of India,Murgabadi Br.