Orissa High Court
WA/405/2026 of VICE CHANCELLOR, UTKAL UNIVERSITY,BBSR Vs MURALIDHAR SWAIN on 20 July 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.405 of 2026 Vice Chancellor, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar & another …. Appellants Represented by Adv. Mr. T. Pattanayak, Advocate -Versus- Muralidhar Swain & another …. Respondents Represented by Adv. Mr. S. Rath, Addl.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.405 of 2026
Vice Chancellor, Utkal University,
Bhubaneswar & another
….
Appellants
Represented by Adv.
Mr. T. Pattanayak, Advocate
-Versus-
Muralidhar Swain & another
….
Respondents
Represented by Adv.
Mr. S. Rath, Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
20.07.2026
01. I.A. No.820 of 2026
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the instant Writ Appeal, which is beyond the period of limitation provided therefor.
2. The application proceeds on the premise that the Registrar of the University being the statutory head has to take a decision in consultation with the Vice Chancellor who being the nominal head of the University. Accordingly, the Vice Chancellor took a final decision, the appeal came to be filed before this Court.
3. We are not unmindful of the proposition that the Court should not adopt a pedantic approach, meaning thereby, finding the fault in the pleading for securing the rejection of an application for condonation of delay but must adopt the pragmatic view based upon the sequel of events narrated in the said application. We are also conscious that each day’s delay is not required to be pleaded, but there should be a symmetry of the events justifying the bonafide and the vigilant action of the person or the authority which must withstand on the subjective satisfaction of the Bench. The casual or mere routine exercise of condoning the delay without looking at the explanation so offered is deprecated in the recent times. It is to be borne in mind that though Section 5 confers power upon the Court to condone the delay, provided the circumstances which occasioned the delay comes, within the ambit of a sufficient cause, but equally, the Court should not overlook the mandatory aspect envisaged under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court must bring an equilibrium between the intricacies of Section 6 and Section 5 of the said Act and shall also bear in mind that a right accrued to the adversary should not be lost and/or destroyed in a cavalier manner. The importance of pleading is well recognized in a legal parlance and the person must succinctly and lucidly narrate the incident which occasioned the delay in filing the instant application. There is no explanation offered in the present application, which would be evident from the below quoted version from the Interlocutory Application:- “1) That the Hon'ble Court passed Order on dtd. 13.10.2025 could be available to the petitioner on their application dtd. 16.10.2025.
2) That the Writ Appeal could not be filed earlier because of certain other official commitments of the petitioner who happens to be the statutory head of the University.
3) That the petitioner humble submits that there has been a delay In the filing of the present Writ Appeal purely for the reasons of the decision making process of the institution. Since the Statutory head of the University is the Registrar and he is to take decision in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor who happens to be the nominal head of the University. Thereafter the Vice-Chancellor took a final decision.
4) That further it could not also be filed earlier because of court holidays from 25.12.2025 till 04.01.2026 . Thus there was a delay of days in filling of the present Writ Appeal.
5) That the said delay Is neither intentional nor deliberate. Rather the said delay has been caused purely due to interinstitutional decision making etc.
6) That unless the Hon'ble Court is pleased to passed necessary orders condoing the abovesaid delay in filing of the present Writ Appeal the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury shall be highly prejudiced.
7) That the petition is bonafied.”
4. It is manifestly evident from the reading of the averments made in the aforementioned paragraphs that the application is bereft of any cause, far to speak of a sufficient cause, for the purpose of condoning the delay.
5. We thus, do not find any merit in the said application. The same is hereby dismissed. No order has to costs.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Bijay/Sarbani Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:27:58 Signature Not Verified