Orissa High Court
WA/804/2025 of ANUPAMA BEHERA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 7 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.804 of 2025 Anupama Behera …. Appellant Mr. B.K. Nayak(3), Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Respondents Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 01. ORDER 07.07.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.804 of 2025
Anupama Behera
….
Appellant
Mr. B.K. Nayak(3), Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others
….
Respondents
Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
01.
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
07.07.2026 This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against a learned Single Judge’s order dated 11.07.2023, whereby Appellant’s W.P.(C) No.19190 of 2023 claiming a direction for payment of compensation has been negatived.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the view of the learned Single Judge, as has been reflected in the impugned order.
3. The above apart, we notice from the records that the lady concerned met her on 07.06.2017 and the claim for compensation was led on 04.01.2022. Thus, there is delay of more than four years in making the claim. There is absolutely no explanation offered for the long delay and latches. That apart, the concerned competent authority, namely, the District Collector has entered a finding that the death of the lady concerned was suicidal. This opinion has been formed by the Collector on the basis of the inquest report. Whether a person died because of suicide or homicide is a pure question of fact and a Writ Court cannot undertake a deeper examination of the same.
4. In addition to what is stated above, we notice that the appeal has been preferred with a delay of 610 days. The explanation offered for the delay in the accompanying application supported by affidavit is far from being plausible. Long delay cannot be condoned merely for askance, said the Apex Court in number of decisions. In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits the same is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Madhusmita
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Jul-2026 10:03:06 Signature Not Verified