Proper and convincing reasons for delay in filing appeals or petitions by state authorities are required, and the usual explanation for delay on account of administrative exigencies should not be accepted unless justified.

ORDER

1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. The present writ petition filed on 15th November, 2019 challenges an order dated 19th May, 2017 by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar (OAT) in O.A. No.98 of 2015.

3. Although it is stated in para-28 of the writ petition that the copy of the impugned order of the OAT was received by the State Government on 13th July, 2017 itself from the Registry of the OAT, the inordinate delay of over two years in filing the writ petition has not been explained by filing an application for condonation of delay.

4. The only explanation offered is in para 28 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that after receipt of the copy of the impugned order, a letter was written to the Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Odisha on 31st July, 2017 to take further course of action in the matter.

It appears that for nearly one year and seven months thereafter no action appears to have been taken. The Law Department by a letter dated 2nd March, 2019 conveyed the decision of the Government that a writ petition should be filed before this Court. There is no explanation offered why it took the Law Department nearly two years to give the above opinion.

Thereafter there were again a series of delays. The response of the office of the Advocate General was received on 8th May, 2019 that the writ petition was ready to be filed. Again nothing seems to have happened thereafter except holding further discussions regarding the conflicting decisions of the OAT. It appears that on 25th June, 2019 the Government decided to file review petition before the OAT. A green signal for the review petition was received from the office of the Chief Minister only on 10th July, 2019 but again nothing was done immediately thereafter. With the OAT itself being abolished in August 2019 the file again travelled to the Chief Minister for sanction to file a writ petition which was received only on 10th October, 2019 Even thereafter the writ petition was not immediately filed and ultimately it was filed only on 15th November, 2019.

5. It is, therefore, seen that at every stage there was a lackadaisical approach by the State Government in processing the file for filing the writ petition before this Court. This kind of explanation has been consistently rejected several times by the Supreme Court in the series of judgments.

6. In The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849, the Supreme Court held that there have to be proper and convincing reasons for the delay in the state authorities filing appeals or petitions. In the said decision the Supreme Court observed as under:

"2. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counseling to Government and Government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the 2 Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed.

3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

'12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned