Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No.326 of 2025 Akshaya Kumar Pattnaik & another ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. – Mr. Sangram Jena -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Party Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.03.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. The above noted CMAPL has been filed at the instance of the Petitioners with a prayer to set aside order dated 13.07.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in F.A.O. No.143 of 2020. 3. Along with the above noted CMAPL, the Petitioners have also filed I.A. No.532 of 2025 with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the CMAPL application. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that initially the Petitioners approached this Court by filing F.A.O. No.143 of 2020 thereby challenging the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Page 2 of 3. Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case No.334 of 2015 and order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Respondent No.1 therein. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that although the above noted F.A.O. was admitted and the same was pending for hearing, however due to the grounds mentioned in the interlocutory application, the counsel for the Appellants- Petitioners could not appear before the coordinate Bench, as a result of which, the F.A.O. was dismissed due to non- prosecution vide order dated 13.07.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the non-appearance before this Court is neither deliberate nor intentional. He further submitted that the counsel appearing for the Appellants-Petitioners missed the matter in the cause list, as a result of which, he could not be present when the matter was called out on 13.07.2023. He further submitted that such dismissal order dated 13.07.2023 was not within the knowledge of the counsel for the Appellants-Petitioners till 8th October, 2025. When the Appellants-Petitioners came to know about the dismissal of their appeal, they immediately contacted their lawyer. Thereafter, counsel for the Appellants-Petitioners filed this application for restoration of the F.A.O. with a delay of 811 days. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the condonaton of delay in filing the present CMAPL. He further submitted that delay in filing CMAPL has not been properly explained. Learned counsel for the State further Page 3 of 3. submitted that taking into consideration the inordinate delay in approaching this Court for restoration of the F.A.O., the CMAPL application be dismissed. 8. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, further taking note of the dispute involved in the F.A.O. preferred by the Petitioners-Appellants, the delay of 811 days in filing the present CMAPL is hereby condoned subject to each of the Petitioners deposit a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Orissa High Court Bar Association within two weeks from today. 9. Subject to deposit of such cost, the CMAPL stands allowed. 10. Since the CMAPL has been allowed and to deposit of the aforesaid cost, the F.A.O. be restored to file and the same be placed before the appropriate assigned Bench in the week commencing 13th April, 2026. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis `