IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. No.1606 OF 2022

(An application under Clause-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948

read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent Appeal and Chapter-VIII,

Rule-2 of the High Court Rules)

*****

Ramesh Chandra Swaro, S/o-Late Damodar Swaro,

resident of 11^th Line, Gajapati Nagar,

Berhampur, Dist-Ganjam

…… Appellant

-Versus-

(1) Berhampur University represented

through its Registrar, Bhanja Vihar,

Berhampur, Dist.-Ganjam.,

(2) The Vice Chancellor,

Berhampur University, Bhanja Vihar,

Berhampur, Dist.-Ganjam

(3) The Chancellor, Berhampur University,

Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khurda

.…… Respondents

Advocates appeared:

For Appellant : Mr. Sadasiva Patra,

Advocate

For Respondents : Dr. Purusottam Chuli,

Advocate

CORAM :

MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

---------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 27.11.2025

-----------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This Intra Court Appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 26^th October, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CMAPL No.123 of 2020, which was disposed of along with I.A. No.41 of 2020 filed for condonation of delay in filing the CMAPL. 3. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that W.P.(C) No.6043 of 2002 was filed by the Appellant challenging the order No.9437 dated 12^th October, 2002 issued by the Chancellor, Berhampur University and order No.15519 dated 29^th December, 2001 issued by the Registrar, Berhampur University. Vide order dated 29.12.2001, the Registrar, Berhampur University imposed punishment on the Appellant (Petitioner therein) in a disciplinary proceeding. The said order was confirmed by the Chancellor vide order dated 12^th October, 2002. Hence, both the orders were under challenged in the aforesaid writ petition. The writ petition was listed for adjudication on 21^st July, 2014. Due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the Petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on the same day. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed CMAPL No.123 of 2020 with a delay of 2001 days. The CMAPL was taken up for consideration on 26^th October, 2022 and the impugned order has been passed.

3.1. Learned Single Judge relied upon the case of State of Orissa and Another Vrs. Bishnupriya Routray and Another; 118 (2014) CLT 588. Applying the ratio decided therein, learned Single Judge dismissed the IA for condonation of delay in filing the CMAPL and consequently the CMAPL was also dismissed.

Assailing the said order dated 26^th October, 2022, this Intra Court Appeal has been filed.

4. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon the case of Batakrushna Behera and Others Vrs. State of Orissa and Others; 74 (1992) C.L.T. 337, wherein this Court held as under:-

“The Limitation Act would not apply to a petition under Article 226, then, a fortiori, the same principle would apply to miscellaneous applications filed in the writ petitions. This was also the view expressed by a five-Judge Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Teja Singh v. Union Territory, A.I.R. 1982 P & H 169, as stated at page 180. Though this Bench overruled the decision of a three Judge Bench in Ram Kela v. Assistant Director, A.I.R. 1977 P. & H. 87 on the question of applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to a writ proceeding, we are not concerned with that aspect in the present case; and so, it is not required to be examined if despite addition of the Explanation to section 141 of the Code in 1976, the provisions of the Code will apply to a writ proceeding or not, and whether absence of any provision in this Court’s Rules, parallel to rule 32 of the High Court of Punjab & Harayana High Court Rules (which was relied on in the above case to hold that the provisions of the Code would apply despite addition of the Explanation to section 141) would make any difference in this regard.”

4.1. He, therefore, submits