Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 385 of 2024 Managing Committee of Fakir Mohan High School, Mayurbhanj ..... Appellant Mr. S. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 27.03.2025 Order No.01 I.A. No. 698 of 2024 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondents. 3. This Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1611 days in filing the appeal in question. 4. It is contended that even though the GIA case was disposed of on 20.12.2019, but the counsel appearing for the Appellant did not know about the dismissal of the GIA Case as State had not filed any counter affidavit before thee Tribunal. It is also contended that due to prevailing situation arising out of COVID-19, Appellant could not contact with his Advocate and the Appellant when contacted with his Advocate only in the 1st week of August, 2024 regarding status of the case, came to know about the dismissal of the GIA Case. Thereafter, Appellant immediately applied for the certified copy and filed the appeal on 14.08.2024. Accordingly, it is contended that the delay in Page 2 of 4. filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate rather it is bonafide one. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondents contended that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by showing sufficient cause and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr. ((2012) 3 SCC 563) and the decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021), the delay is not required to be condoned. 5.1. This Court after going through the grounds taken in the Petition finds that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by showing sufficient cause and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr. ((2012) 3 SCC 563) and the decision of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021), the delay is not required to be condoned. 5.2. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 27 and 29 of the Judgment in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. has 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. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities Page 3 of 4. that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 5.3. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors in Para -5 has held as follows:- “5. The Supreme Court has recently in a series of matters reiterated that the explanation usually offered by the State and its entities for the delay on account of administrative exigencies should not be accepted unless they are shown to be justified. A sampling of such orders is as under: (i) Order dated 13th January 2021 in SLP No.17559 of 2020 (State of Gujarat v. Tushar Jagdish Chandra Vyas & Anr.) (ii) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP No.11989 of 2020 (The Commissioner of Public Instruction & Ors. v. Shamshuddin) (iii) Order dated 22nd January 2021 in SLP No.25743 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Sabha Narain & Ors.) (iv) Order dated 4th February 2021 in SLP No.19846 of 2020 (Union of India v. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors) (v) Order dated 11th January 2021 in SLP No.22605 of 2020 (The State of Odisha & Ors v. Sunanda Mahakuda)” 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court does not find any sufficient cause pleaded by the Appellant for condoning the delay in question. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the I.A accordingly. Page 4 of 4. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge P.T.O. 02. FAO No. 385 of 2024 1. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha