Pravat Kumar Bisoi Vs Union of India

This petition by the candidate seeks to lay a challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 16.04.2024, whereby the review application is rejected because the delay has not been condoned and office objections were not addressed.

¶14

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mishra appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the grounds on which the impugned order is structured are not sustainable, inasmuch as earlier liberty was granted and therefore, the doctrine of res judicata would not be applicable; the COVID pandemic-19 intervened and therefore, delay has to be very leniently considered. He also tells the Court that Section 21 of the Administrative

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

Tribunal’s Act, 1985 is liberally construed by various High Courts of the Country and that liberalism is not reflected in the impugned order. 3. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India and its officials stoutly resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the grounds on which it has been constructed. He draws attention of the Court to the contents of Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the impugned order to substantiate his stand.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the CAT, Cuttack. At Paragarphs 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the impugned order, the CAT has observed as under:

¶18

“3. In the instant case, the explanation submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner for delay in filing the Review Application is that after dismissal of the OA, the review applicant had challenged the said order before Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 11446/2018, which was disposed by the Hon'ble High Court on 13.12.2018 directing him to file review application. Applicant filed review application on 15.01.2019 with Diary No. 85/2019 but, since there was some defects, the same was not registered. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.02.2020 allowed applicant two weeks time to remove the defects with condition that if the defects are not removed within the stipulated period, the application would be deemed to be applicant submitted that due to imposition of restriction due to Covil-19, applicant could not take any step subsequently and he got file back in the first week of October, 2023. It is submitted by him that this Tribunal vide order dated 14.02.2024 while dismissing MA 625/2023 for recall of order dated 18.02.2020 granted liberty to the applicant to pursue the matter in accordance with law for which he has filed the present RA. It is submitted by him that as the order dated 18.02.2020 was never in the knowledge of the applicant till October, 2023, for the laches on the part of counsel, the applicant should not be allowed to suffer. Hence, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP(C) 5738/2008, Akshaya Kumar Parida Vs. UOI & Ors, he has prayed to condone the delay.

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

4. Section 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is very specific and deals with regard to filing of Review Petition. The said provision prescribes that "No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed". Law is also well defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sitaram Ram Charan Vs. M.N.Nagrasharma , AIR 1960 220, that "sufficient cause" means the appellant's explanation for the delay has to cover the whole period of the delay.

¶21

5. The ground put forth by the applicant regarding restrictions imposed due to Covid 19 is not well convincing as the period of restriction due to Covid-19 was from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 (Misc. Application No. 21/2022 in Misc. Application No. 665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022). Hence, this Tribunal find that there is undue delay in approaching this Tribunal with no proper explanation.

¶22

6. Further, admittedly, the applicant filed Review Application vide Diary No. 85/2019, which was dismissed without any liberty since the applicant did not show any interest to remove the defect. At this stage, we are reminded by the decision of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that successive review application against the original judgment is not maintainable and it would suffice to place reliance on one such decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Naravana Reddy and others. 2022 SCC Online SC 1034, wherein in paragraph 36 it was held that second set of review applications were nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court and ought to have been rejected by the Court as not maintainable.”

¶23

We are in broad agreement with the observations hereinabove made.

¶24

The vehement contention of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mishra appearing for the petitioner that when liberty is granted by the order, the doctrine of res judicata has to stay miles away, is bit difficult to countenance. Merely because liberty is granted, that does not mean a citizen can woke up from the deep slumber and approach the Tribunal at any time whenever he wants. The sages of law has said that law of limitation is a law of peace and repose and therefore, there should be finality to the lis in the best interest of the society itself. The Tribunal

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

found explanation offered for the delay brooked in approaching is not plausible, is true. However, Tribunal also in the earlier orders discussed about certain things that would eventually amount to res judicata going by any standard book on the doctrine of res judicata . After all, doctrine of res judicata that operates in the High Courts and Tribunals, is bit wider than what has been enacted in Section 11 of CPC, 1908, said the Apex Court.

¶27

In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶28

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶29

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶30

Prasant

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 21-Jan-2026 15:53:00

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Pravat Kumar Bisoi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravat Kumar Bisoi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Odisha Vs Jaya Krushna Senapati

State of Odisha Vs Akshaya Kumar Barik

Prasanta Kumar Das Vs Union of India

Sudhansu Nanda Vs Collector-Cum-Dm, Sambalpur

Dillip Kumar Moharana Vs State of Odisha

Vice-Chairman, State Council for Technical Education and Vocational Training, Bbsr Vs Subhashree Pattanaik