Appealing state sought condonation of 353 days delay in filing an appeal, citing procedural latches. Court rejected condonation, relying on Supreme Court precedents that government departments bear a special obligation to avoid delay, dismissing the appeal.
Application for condonation of delay rejected; 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.47 of 2007
State of Odisha & Anr.
…. Appellants Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
-versus-
Malaya Kumar Singhbabu & …. Respondents Ors. Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate (Respondent No. 1)
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.04.2023
Order No 08. Misc. Case No.67 of 2007
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
3. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 353 days in filing the appeal. Learned AGA contended that the delay has been properly explained and the delay is due to procedural latches and not bonafide one.
4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 27 and 29 of the Judgment in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr. ((2012) 3 SCC 563) has held as follows:-
// 2 //
< 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.=
4.1. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021) 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:
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
5. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 contended that the order impugned has been implemented in the meantime and Respondent No. 1 is in receipt of the Grant-in-aid in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal.
6 . However, this Court taking into account the fact that no justifiable ground has been raised for condoning the delay in question and the fact that the order has been implemented, placing reliance on the decisions as cited supra, is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
7. Accordingly, Misc. Case is rejected.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
09. FAO No.47 of 2007
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
Sneha
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 353 days in filing the appeal can be condoned.
Whether procedural latches provide a bonafide explanation for state delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr.Explained¶14
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 IIRelied on¶18
State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021)
State of Odisha & Anr.
Malaya Kumar Singhbabu
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
