Partly allowed

State v. M.C,Bodasa Balunkesw

Orissa HC16 Mar 2023FAO/110/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Oriasa disposed of a motion to condone delay and decided the underlying failure to comply with limitation. The Court acquitted itself of no duty in the matter and dismissed the matter. Condoned the delay in filing the appeal, quashed the impugned ex parte judgment, and directed the Tribunal to decide afresh within six months. The appellants were also directed to file thei

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned subject to cost; impugned ex parte judgment quashed; Tribunal directed to dispose afresh within 6 months; appellants to file counter within 1 month.

State Vs M.C,Bodasa Balunkesw — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

FAO No.110 of 2006

¶3

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶4

…. Appellants

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Managing Committee of Bodasa …. Respondent Balunkeswar Dev Bidyapitha, Bodasa

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

16.03.2023

Order No

05. Misc. Case No. 16 of 2006

¶12

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. N. Jena, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶14

3. This is an application filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶15

4. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the Odisha High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund. The cost be deposited and receipt be filed by tomorrow (17.03.2023).

¶16

5. Misc. Case is disposed of.

¶17

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶18

P.T.O.

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

06. FAO No.110 of 2006

¶21

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶22

2. Heard Mr. N. Jena, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶23

3. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dtd.02.12.2005 passed in GIA Case No. 116 of 2004.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the impugned Judgment has been passed ex parte against the Appellants as the Appellants could not appear before the Tribunal in spite of receipt of notice. It is contended that in absence of the Appellants the matter was decided and direction was issued to notify the school in question to get Block Grant as per the provisions of Grant-in-order, 2004. It is contended that the impugned Judgment is a non-speaking one and no reason has been assigned justifying the stand taken by the Respondent-School.

¶25

5. Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent on the other hand contended that since in spite of due receipt of notice the Appellants never appeared, they were set ex-parte and the Tribunal after considering the material allowed the claim.

¶26

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and taking into account the fact that the impugned Judgment is an exparte one, this Court is inclined to quash the same. While quashing the same, this Court directs the Tribunal to make all endeavor and dispose of the matter afresh within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order. The Respondent is directed to cooperate for disposal of the matter within the aforesaid time

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

// 3 //

¶29

period. The Appellants are also directed to file their counter within a period of one (1) month from today and they shall take part in the proceeding without praying for any adjournment.

¶30

7. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶31

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶32

sneha

¶33

Page 3 of 3

State v. M.C,Bodasa Balunkesw

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. M.C,Bodasa Balunkesw

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prahallad Chandra Samal Vs State of Odisha

Jugal Kishor Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Buthi Behera Vs State of Odisha

State Vs Srinibas Khadanga

State Vs Lokanath Pradhan

State Vs Ranjiit Pr.Pallai