State v. Mahadev Mirdha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

LAA No.113 of 2009 State of Orissa .....

Appellant Mr. G..Rout, ASC Vs.

Mahadev Mirdha .....

Respondent CORAM: MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

28.09.2022 Misc. Case No.197 of 2009 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Order No.

02.

2.

Though the Misc. Case has been filed on 31.10.2009, praying therein to allow three months time to the Appellant to pay the Deficit Court Fee, which has not been paid, by efflux of time, the Misc. case has become infructuous.

3.

Accordingly, the Misc. Case stands dismissed. (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE Order No.

03.

LAA NO.113 of 2009 1.

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.07.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athmallik, in L.A. Misc Case No.19 of 2004 on 30.11.2009. As pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, there is a delay of 5 years and 14 days in preferring the present Appeal and no step for limitation has

been taken by the Appellant for condonation of delay. Neither the Deficit Court Fee has been paid nor any fresh application has been filed, seeking further time to pay the Deficit Court Fee. 2.

The apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 observed as under:

"12) 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.

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 bonafide, 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.

13) 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 law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 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.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."

3.

Also, in view of the recent judgment/order of this Court in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), which has been passed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 849, this Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

4.

Accordingly, the Appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stands dismissed. Banita (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE