Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.449 of 2018 The State of Odisha and another ..... Appellants Represented By Adv. – Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC -versus- Sri Subash Chandra Nayak and another ..... Respondents Represented By Adv. – Mr. Sushanta Kumar Mishra CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.04.2026 Order No. I.A No.657 of 2018 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. 5. Taking into consideration the grounds taken in the petition for condonation of delay, this Court is inclined to condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) to be paid before the Juvenile Justice Fund managed by the Member Secretary, Odisha State Legal Services Authority. Page 2 of 2. 6. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of. FAO No.449 of 2018 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Parties that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court so passed on 19.03.2025 in FAO No.509 of 2014 and batch which was eventually confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.6943 of 2026 vide order dated 25.03.2026. 9. In view of such submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present FAO is disposed of in the light of judgment so passed in FAO No.509 of 2014 and batch, subject to the verification of the fact that the Petitioner’s case is covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in FAO No.509 of 2014, and that the ratio laid down in FAO No.509 of 2014, which was eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, shall apply to the facts of the Petitioner’s case. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis