The High Court rejected the appellants' application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, holding that the delay was not satisfactorily explained by mere reference to departmental file movement and relying on Supreme Court precedents requiring bona fide efforts.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed and the appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.135 of 2006
State of Odisha & Anr.
…. Appellants
-versus-
Ranjit Prasad Pallai …. Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.03.2023
Order No
05. Misc. Case No. 201 of 2006
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.
3. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal in question.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that even though the Tribunal disposed of GIA Case No. 12 of 2003 vide Judgment dtd.15.01.2005 and subsequently the Respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 9186 of 2005 for execution of the said Judgment, but during pendency of the matter before this Court, the State Govt. decided to file an appeal against the impugned Judgment by referring the matter for opinion of the Law Department on 18.02.2006. After receipt of the opinion, the present FAO was filed on 27.03.2006.
// 2 //
Accordingly, it is contended that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
5. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by showing sufficient cause and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr. ((2012) 3 SCC 563) and the decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021) , the delay is not required to be condoned.
5.1. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 27 and 29 of the Judgment in the case of Post Master General has held as follows:-
“ 27. 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 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.
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 and 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 perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”
5.2. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Odisha in Para -5 has held as follows:-
“5. 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:
(i) Order dated 13th January 2021 in SLP No.17559 of 2020 (State of Gujarat v. Tushar Jagdish Chandra Vyas & Anr.) (ii) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP No.11989 of 2020 (The Commissioner of Public Instruction & Ors. v. Shamshuddin) (iii) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP No.25743 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Sabha Narain & Ors.) (iv) Order dated 4th February 2021 in SLP No.19846 of 2020 (Union of India v. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors) (v) Order dated 11th January 2021 in SLP No.22605 of 2020 (The State of Odisha & Ors v. Sunanda Mahakuda) ”
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court does not find any sufficient cause pleaded by the Appellants for condoning the delay in question. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the application accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
06. FAO No.135 of 2006
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Sine this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
sneha
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the State Government can be condoned.
Whether the plea of procedural red tape amounts to sufficient cause for condoning delay.
Whether the application seeking condonation of delay should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr.Relied on¶19
Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr. ((2012) 3 SCC 563) · Who else cites this
State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IIApplied¶18
State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II
State of Odisha & Anr.
Ranjit Prasad Pallai
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
