IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.274 of 2023 State of Orissa & ors. …. Petitioners Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC -versus- Sapneswar Pradhan …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 11.11.2025 RVWPET No.274 of 2023 & I.A. No.223 of 2023 05. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 931 days in preferring the review petition, which was presented on 21.06.2023, challenging the impugned order dated 02.11.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.29096 of 2020. 3. An objection has been filed by the Opposite Party, who is the writ petitioner, on the ground that each day of delay has not been properly explained. That apart, the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay are not convincing. Though I.A. No.222 of 2023 has been filed along with the review petition to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the impugned order as at Annexure-1 for the time being, the certified copy has not been filed till date. Hence, the delay should be counted till the date of production of the certified copy. 4. It would be pertinent to mention here that the present review petition has been preferred by the State solely on the ground that though R.P. No.07 of 2015 is pending for review/recall/modification of the order dated 27.03.2014 passed in OA No.734 of 2014, suppressing the said fact, the writ petitioner obtained an order in W.P.(C) No.29096 of 2020. 5. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party submits, in the meantime, on abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the said review petition i.e. R.P. No.07 of 2015 being transferred to this Court, has already been dismissed on 08.04.2022. 6. However, the Supreme Court in Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. 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.” 7. 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), relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 849, also took a similar view . 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Parties and going through the averments made in the I.A. and objection filed in response to the I.A. by the private Opposite Party and the settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the delay in preferring the review petition has not been properly explained. That apart, the reasons assigned therein are not convincing. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. As a consequence thereof, the Review Petition also stands dismissed. Banita (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER