FAO No.94 of 2016

Misc. Case No.182 of 2016

18.3.2016

This misc. case has been filed by the petitioners-State under Section 5 of the Limitat

ion for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Bhubane

swar in GIA Case No.369 of 2011 is impugned in this appeal. There is a delay of 1150 days in f

iling the appeal.

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner- School & Mass Education Dep

artment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government is an impersona

l machinery. Thus latitude is permissible in which Government is a litigant. He further submit

s that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. Dela

y in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. Hence the same be condoned.

In Office of the Chief Post Master & Others Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ano

ther, (2012) 3 SCC 563, after survey of the earlier decisions, the apex Court in paragraphs 27

, 28, 29 and 30 held as follows:-

27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the i

ssues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way o

f filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate p

eriod of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with cou

rt proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a questi

on why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the

Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when ther

e was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession h

as to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circ

umstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on acc

ount of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes ca

nnot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limit

ation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

29. 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 a

nd 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 pe

rform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and sho

uld not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyon

e under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department f

or 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.

On the anvil of the decision cited supra, the case of the petitioner may be ex

amined. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners have assigned the reasons

which are as follows:

That the impugned judgment is dated 30.10.2012 and the instant appeal having been filed on 22.

2.2016 there has been a delay of about 774 days in filing the same.

That the Government in the Department of School and Mass Education vide letter dated 8.10.2015

requested the District Education Officer, Nayagarh to file appeal before the Honble High Cour

t against the order