Dismissed

State of Orissa v. Biswajit Samantaray

Orissa HC11 Jun 2021WA/165/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, when hearing a supplementary application for condonation of delay in filing a writ petition, held that the State failed to offer plausible reasons for the 186-day delay. Citing Supreme Court precedents emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods for government filings despite bureaucratic inefficiencies, the court dismissed the supplementary application and the mai

What did the court decide?

The supplementary application for condonation of delay and the writ petition are dismissed as time-barred with costs imposed on the State.

State of Orissa Vs Biswajit Samantaray — Public Procurement and Tenders | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.165 of 2018

¶2

State of Odisha and Others

¶3

Appellants

¶4

Mr. M.S. Sahoo

¶5

Additional Government Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Biswajit Samantaray

¶8

Respondent

¶9

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Nayak, Advocate

¶10

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

11.06.2021

I.A. No.252 of 2018

¶15

¶16

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶17

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 186 days in filing the writ appeal against the order dated 23^rd June, 2017 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8097 of 2017 whereby a direction has been issued to the appellants (State) to reassess the conversion fees with respect to the house allotted in favour of the respondent's father and thereafter allow the conversion within a period of three months by a reasoned order.

¶18

Though 186 days of delay has been shown by the Appellants in the present application, in fact, it is 263 days.

¶19

The explanations offered in paras 4 and 5 in the present application for condonation of delay, read as under:

¶20

Page 1 of 8

¶21

"4. That, the Petitioners/Appellants received the Certified copy of the order dtd. 23.06.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(c) No.8097 of 2017 on 03.07.2017 from the Writ Petitioner - Sri Biswajit Samantaray. After receipt of the Order dtd. 23.06.2017 passed in W.P.(c) No.8097 of 2017, the Petitioners/Appellants vide order dtd. 28.10.2017 sought legal Opinion in the matter on account of the legal complicacies involved in the matter. The Opinion of the Law Department was received on 20.11.2017.

¶22

That, after receipt of the Opinion of the Law Department on 20.11.2017, finally a decision was taken at the appropriate level to prefer an Appeal against the impugned Order dtd. 23.06.2017. Accordingly, the Office of the learned Advocate General was communicated vide letter No.13984 dtd. 18.11.2017 for filing of the Appeal. On being queried by the Office of the learned Advocate General further documents were supplied to the Office of the learned Advocate General vide letter dtd. 05.01.2018 for the preparation of draft Writ Appeal. Thereafter, again the Office of the learned Advocate General vide letters dtd. 1963 dtd. 6.02.2018 called for further information in the matter for preparation of the draft. The Appeal is made ready and same is filed today. Thus, there has been a delay of 186 days in filing the accompanying Appeal."

¶23

The Supreme Court has made it clear in a series of judgments, including the recent decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849, held that there have to be proper and convincing reasons for the delay in the state authorities filing appeals or petitions. In the said decision the Supreme Court observed as under:

¶24

"2. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counseling to

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

Government and Government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the 2 Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed.

¶27

No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government ( Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 ). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v.Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

¶28

“12) 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 3 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 merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of

¶29

Page 3 of 8

¶30

bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, 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.

¶31

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 and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years 4 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 everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for 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.”

¶32

Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!

¶33

A reading of the aforesaid application shows that the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be only “due to unavailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents”. In paragraph 4 a reference has been made to “bureaucratic process works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs”.

¶34

Page 4 of 8

¶35

A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the 5 period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.

¶36

We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as “certificate cases”. The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to 6 address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.

¶37

We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible.

¶38

Page 5 of 8

¶39

Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner-State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time.

¶40

The special leave petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid."

¶41

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:

¶42

(i) Order dated 13^th January 2021 in SLP No.17559 of 2020 ( State of Gujarat v. Tushar Jagdish Chandra Vyas & Anr .)

¶43

(ii) Order dated 22^nd January 2021 in SLP No.11989 of 2020 ( The Commissioner of Public Instruction & Ors. v. Shamshuddin )

¶44

(iii) Order dated 22^nd January 2021 in SLP No.25743 of 2020 ( State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Sabha Narain & Ors. )

¶45

Page 6 of 8

¶46

(iv) Order dated 4^th February 2021 in SLP No.19846 of 2020 ( Union of India v. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors )

¶47

(v) Order dated 11^th January 2021 in SLP No.22605 of 2020 ( The State of Odisha & Ors v. Sunanda Mahakuda )

¶48

It is seen that by the last order dated 11^th January 2021 in SLP No.22605 of 2020 ( The State of Odisha & Ors v. Sunanda Mahakuda ) filed by the State of Odisha itself, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- for filing a belated SLP without offering any credible explanation.

¶49

In the instant case, even the initial step of merely sending a copy of the impugned order for the opinion on whether an appeal should be filed was delayed by nearly four months after the receipt of the order of the learned Single Judge. The approach of the Appellants can at best be described as lackadaisical. There extraordinary delay of 186 days in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained.

¶50

Consequently, the delay is not condoned. The I.A. is dismissed.

¶51

W.A. No.165 of 2018

¶52

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶53

It is clarified that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge would be confined to the facts of the case of the Respondent and will not constitute a precedent.

¶54

Page 7 of 8

¶55

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶56

( Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(K.R.Mohapatra)
Judge
S.K. Jena/P.A.

¶57

Page 8 of 8

State of Orissa v. Biswajit Samantaray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Biswajit Samantaray

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhaneswar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Devendra Rana Vs State of Odisha

Binaya Kumar Das Vs Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan

Urmila Anthony Vs State of Odisha

Raka @ Akash @ Rakesh Behera @ Bhoi Vs Union of India