The High Court of Odisha dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The court held that mere procedural latches and official procedures do not constitute sufficient cause to condone delay, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed; consequently, the underlying appeal was 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.490 of 2006
State of Odisha & Others
…. Appellant Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA
-versus-
Sri Kamalakanta Nayak & …. Respondents Others Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv.
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.04.2023
Order No
09. Misc. Case No.851 of 2006
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. This Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 3 years and 241 days delay in filing the appeal in question,challenging the order dtd.21.02.2003 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A Case No.70 of 2002. It is contended that due to procedural latches and official procedures, the matters could not be filed within the period of limitation and the delay is not intentional rather bonafide one.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 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.
4.1. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 27 and 29 of the Judgment in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.=
4.2. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors 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 4
5. 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 I.A accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
10. FAO No.490 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.
sangita
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing an appeal of 3 years and 241 days due to procedural latches could be condoned?
Whether mere administrative exigencies are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of sufficient cause for condoning delay?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr.Followed¶15
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 IIFollowed¶15
State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Odisha & Others
Sri Kamalakanta Nayak & Others
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
