Dismissed¶16

State of Odisha v. Basant Manjari Pahi

Orissa HC19 Mar 2024WA/98/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: condonation of delay; limitation; 541-day delay; COVID-19 pandemic excuse; movement of file in State Government hierarchy; Supreme Court order dated 10.01.2022 extending period to 28.02.2022; Office of the Chief Post Master General vrs. Living Media India Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 1506; I.A. No.232 of 2023 dismissed; W.A. No.98 of 2023 dismissed; challenge to Single Judge's order dated 28.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No.13840 of 2021 abandoned; Orissa High Court, Cuttack; bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and M.S. Raman; decided 19.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed on 21.01.2023 assailing the order dated 28.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No.13840 of 2021 suffers a delay of 541 days on the State's own showing and is therefore barred by limitation. ¶9

State of Odisha Vs Basant Manjari Pahi — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 541 days in filing the writ appeal (W.A. No.98 of 2023) against the order dated 28.06.2021 should be condoned. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The writ appeal filed on 21.01.2023 assailing the order dated 28.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No.13840 of 2021 suffers a delay of 541 days on the State's own showing and is therefore barred by limitation.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

There is no explanation furnished by the State as to why the appeal could not be filed soon after 28.02.2022, in view of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022.

¶10

Key takeaways

The explanation offered in para-7 of the condonation-of-delay application - movement of the file through different higher level authorities of the State Government and the COVID-19 pandemic - was vague.ratio¶12
Applying the position in Office of the Chief Post Master General vrs. Living Media India Ltd. (AIR 2012 SC 1506) that delay in movement of file cannot be treated as a good ground for condonation, the court was not satisfied with the State's explanation and found no reason to condone the delay.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA) No.98 of 2023, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, coram Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and M.S. Raman, Judge, order dated 19.03.2024. The State of Odisha appealed against a learned Single Judge's order dated 28.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No.13840 of 2021, filing on 21.01.2023 - a delay of 541 days by its own admission, leaving the appeal barred by limitation. The accompanying condonation application (I.A. No.232 of 2023) offered only a vague para-7 explanation invoking file movement through higher level State authorities and COVID-19, with no explanation for failure to file soon after 28.02.2022 despite the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022. Relying on Office of the Chief Post Master General vrs. Living Media India Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 1506, the bench held that delay in movement of file is not a good ground for condonation and found no reason to condone the delay; I.A. No.232 of 2023 was dismissed and consequently the writ appeal also stands dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WA No.98 of 2023

¶3

…. State of Odisha & another Appellants Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia, Addl. Govt. Advocate Vs. …. Smt. Basant Manjari Pahi & Respondents another

¶4

Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia, Addl. Govt. Advocate Vs.

¶5

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Samal, Advocate (Respondent No.1)

¶6

Order No.

¶7

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 19.03.2024

¶8

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. I.A. No.232 of 2023 and W.A. No.98 of 2023

¶9

Assailing an order dated 28.06.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.13840 of 2021, this writ appeal has been filed by the State of Odisha on 21.01.2023. The appeal is thus barred by limitation. According to their own showing, there is delay of 541 days in preferring the present intra-Court appeal.

¶10

It has been argued by Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that it was because of COVID-19 pandemic situation that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time. We, however, find that there is no explanation as to why the appeal could not be filed soon after 28.02.2022 in the view of order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the

¶11

Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 with Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 .

¶12

Following is the vague explanation given in para-7 of the application seeking condonation of delay:-

¶13

“7. That the delay in filing the writ appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, due to movement of the file in different higher level authorities of the State Government as well as COVID-19 pandemic situation.”

¶14

We are not satisfied with the explanation put forth by the State as noted above for condonation of delay. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General vrs. Living Media India Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 1506 , delay in movement of file cannot be treated to be a good ground for condonation of delay. We, accordingly, do not find any reason to condone the delay.

¶15

The I.A. No.232 of 2023 for condonation of delay is dismissed.

¶16

Consequently, this appeal also stands dismissed.

¶17

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)

¶18

Chief Justice

¶19

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶20

Aswini

¶21

Signature Not Verified Aswini

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTA CK Date: 21-Mar-2024 13:43:17

State of Odisha v. Basant Manjari Pahi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Basant Manjari Pahi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Magnum Sea Foods Ltd. Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

Upendra Kumar Roul Vs State of Odisha

Chandramani Mohapatra Vs Chairman and Md, Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Mumbai

Prabhat Kumar Baksi Vs Sub Collector, Sundargarh

Dhurba Charan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha