Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 262 (ORI)

State of Odisha v. Prabir Kumar Palai

2018-03-16

D.DASH

body2018
ORDER MISC. CASE NO. 185 OF 2017 16.03.2018 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. The appellants i.e. the State of Odisha and Director, Higher Education, Odisha in the appeal have questioned the judgment dated 25.03.2014 passed by the learned Education Tribunal in GIA Case No. 790 of 2012 in the matter of an application under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act filed by the respondent. 2. As provided in Section 24-C of Orissa Education Act, 1968, the appeal has to be preferred within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of the judgment and not from communication, as the said concept of communication has neither been mandated in the Act nor in the Rules. In the instant case, the judgment having been passed on 25.03.2014, the memorandum of appeal before this Court has been presented on 29.03.2017 and it is after delay of 1041 days, i.e., more than 2 years and 10 months. 3. First of all, it is stated that the copy of the judgment was received in the administrative department on 02.04.2015. But even then the relevant file was processed on 28.04.2015. It is further stated that the file was sent to the Assistant Law Officer of the Department and on 30.04.2015 the Assistant Law Officer of the Department and on 30.04.2015 the Assistant Law Officer remitted the file to the Branch Office. The file was finally sent to the Law Department on 02.05.2015 and the Law Department returned the file seeking certain clarifications. Then the respondent no. 1 had preferred W.P.(C) No. 747 of 2017 before this Court seeking direction to the present appellants to implement the orders of the Tribunal dated 25.03.2014 passed in G.I.A. Case. Therefore, the matter which was almost standing still, was discussed with the learned Advocate General and getting positive response, after another round of examination in the Office of the learned Advocate General, Odisha, the process finally culminated on 29.03.2017 by way of presented of memorandum of appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and it has so occurred because of the time consumed in the official process, which is inevitable. So he urges for condonation of delay. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and it has so occurred because of the time consumed in the official process, which is inevitable. So he urges for condonation of delay. 5. In Office of the Chief Post Master & Others vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 , after survey of the earlier decisions, the apex Court in paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 30 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. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of benafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 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 bonafide 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 government departments. 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” 6. The appellants were contesting the proceeding before the Education Tribunal. So it is not permissible to say that they were not aware of the result of the proceeding at the time of its conclusion. The Tribunal was under no legal obligation to send a copy of its judgment to the appellants as the concept of communication is not provided in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. There is no specific mention as to which documents had gone without being examined, during the pendency of the original proceeding giving rise to further need for collection of those for further examination in order to take a decision in the matter of filing the appeal. The delay in initiating the process in the Administrative Department is more than one year and then it is said that further time was consumed for examination. This sufficient cause as projected in the application for condonation of delay basically rests on the consumption of the time in the official dealing of the matter and in processing the fie. The lack of diligence gets exhibited from the fact that even after the receipt of the judgment, long period was allowed to elapse even for the commencement of the move. The reasons assigned are all casual and vague. Those do not go to show that the matter had been dealt with diligence and minimum promptitude. It is not a case to say that the delay took place for some unavoidable circumstances beyond control. The reasons assigned are all casual and vague. Those do not go to show that the matter had been dealt with diligence and minimum promptitude. It is not a case to say that the delay took place for some unavoidable circumstances beyond control. Merely saying that the delay was caused in the official processing of file and thus there is no deliberate latches or willful negligence on the part of the appellants in not filing the appeal in time, does not suffice the purpose more particularly, in a case when the delay here is for more than two and half years. The grounds do not contain any acceptable or plausible reasons and those are wholly lacking in the case. Therefore, testing the present case through the spectrum of the ratio of the decision in case of Office of the Chief Post Master & Others (supra) and other decisions (supra), this Court finds no prima facie justification to entertain the petition for condonation of delay. In a causal manner everything have been said which are not per se acceptable to say as sufficient causes coming to stand on the way of filing the appeal late, that too after lapse of two years and ten months from the date of expiry of the period prescribed for the filing of appeal. 7. Accordingly, the petition giving rise to the Misc. Case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.