WA/166/2026 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs PRASANTA KUMAR DAS on 30 June 2026

ORDER

30.06.2026

I.A. No.290 of 2026 and W.A. No.166 of 2026

02.

1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal beyond the period of limitation provided therefor.

2. It is averred in the instant application that the decision was taken on 16.10.2025 for filing a writ appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition on 05.08.2025. It is further averred that after a thorough and careful examination of the said order dated 05.08.2025 a decision was taken to file the writ appeal and the learned Additional Government Advocate was entrusted on 10.11.2025 to prepare the draft of the appeal and admittedly, the appeal came to be filed on 16.01.2026. The explanation so offered does not appear to be satisfactory for the simple reasons that the steps which are required to be taken have to be pleaded explicitly and unambiguously in the instant application.

3. We are conscious of the proposition of law that each day’s delay is not required to be pleaded by the litigant but it does not absolve the litigant to narrate the circumstances which was beyond his control and the litigant was all along vigilant and careful in pursuing the remedy and taking all steps permissible in law. The State cannot be treated as a privileged litigant and, therefore, it does not absolve the responsibilities of the instrumentalities of the State to take prompt and immediate decision in relation to the litigations, more particularly, when a decision is taken to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Single Bench.

4. The apathetic attitude or dormancy having shown by the officers of the Government cannot be taken so leniently as the interest of the public has to be borne in the mind and the persons entrusted in this regard has to act within the reasonable time as provided. Simply because the State took a decision to prefer an appeal without being sufficient explanations offered in this regard, we do not think that the application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed merely on the ipse dixit of the fact that the State is the appellant. There should be symmetry in the steps taken by the officers and, even if some negligence is attributed to the conduct of the official yet the Court should condone the delay, as meritorious matters should not be nipped in the bud but tested on the anvil of the Limitation Act. Equally, the Court cannot overlook the rigour of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and while considering the application for condonation of delay it must satisfy its own conscience in a subjective manner as to whether the same constitutes a sufficient cause within the purview of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. The facts narrated in the instant application are insufficient nor proper explanation has been offered for the steps to have been taken and there appears to be a gross negligence on the part of the authorities in pursuing the matter.

6. We, thus, do not find any merit in the instant application and accordingly, stands dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

S.K. Jena/Sr. Secy. Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: Asst. Registrar-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 02-Jul-2026 14:43:13 Signature Not Verified