The division bench dismissed the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay in an appeal and the principal appeal itself, relying on inactivity and excessive lapse of time despite the delay being beyond the limitation period.
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.84 of 2006
State of Odisha & Ors. …. Appellants Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
-versus-
Managing Committee of Maa …. Respondent Bhuasuni Bidyapitha
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER 05.04.2023
Order No
03. Misc. Case No. 118 of 2006
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.
3. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. Even though the appeal has been filed with delay of 375 days, but it is also found that after filing of the appeal, no step has been taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants to get the matter listed.
5. In view of such action on the part of the Appellants and taking into account the delay involved, this Court is not inclined to issue notice on the question of limitation after 17 years of the filing of the matter. This Court also finds that no justifiable ground has been taken in the Misc. Case for condoning the delay.
// 2 //
6. Therefore, placing reliance on 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) , this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal also.
7. Accordingly, the Misc. Case is dismissed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
04. FAO No.84 of 2006
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment dtd.15.12.2004 passed by the State Education Tribunal in G.I.A. Case No. 44 of 2004.
3. 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 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned given the inactivity since filing.
Whether notice proceedings on limitation of action should be issued after such a long delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr.Relied on¶17
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¶17
State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021)
State of Odisha
Managing Committee of Maa Bhuasuni Bidyapitha
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Parties & counsel
