p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1564 of 2025 State of Odisha, represented through its Commissioner-Cum- Secretary to Government, Works Department & Others …. Appellants Mr.S.B. Panda, AGA -versus- Arzoo Hussain …. Respondent Mr.P.K.Sahoo, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER 19.01.2026 W.A. No.1564/2025 & I.A. No.3946/2025 This intra-Court appeal by the State and its officials calls in question the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in Respondent’s W.P.(C) No.2050 of 2025 wherein the operative portion reads as under:- “Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, keeping in view the factual background of the present case as well as the law laid down by this Court Pradip Kumar Panigrahi's case (supra) the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.1 taking therein all grounds along with a copy of the judgment referred to hereinabove within a period of two weeks from today. The Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the representation in accordance with Order No. 01. p. 2 law and by applying the ratio laid down in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi's case (supra) and the representation of the petitioner, and shall dispose of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within period of eight weeks from the date of filing of representation along with certified copy of today's order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter….” 2. Learned AGA Mr.Panda appearing for the appellants vehemently argues that although there is short delay of 203 days in filing the appeal, a plausible explanation has been shown for condonation thereof by filing I.A. No.3946 of 2025 supported by affidavit; he also states that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in following the decision in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi v. State of Odisha decided in W.P.(C) No.38771 of 2020 vide order dated 30.01.2023. We do not find the explanation offered for the delay brooked in filing the appeal to be plausible vide Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media Limited, AIR 2012 SC 1506. In almost every case coming before this Court filed by the State, there is invariably delay, at times long delay. For the purpose of limitation law, State does not stand on a preferable footing qua the citizen. Be that as it may, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge only directs consideration of the case of the respondent in the light of a particular decision, namely, Pradip Kumar Panigrahi p. 3 Supra. Nothing more is stated. In matters of the kind, ordinarily intra-Court appeal does not lie. In the above circumstances, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected in limine and accordingly it is. The order of the learned Single Judge be implemented within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks to be reckoned from this day. Office to send a copy of this order to the Respondent by speed post immediate for his knowledge & action. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Basu Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY