ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

139
restored, only to avoid the order/direction of this Court dated 14.09.2009,
passed in W.P.(C) No.3465 of 2009.
Learned Sr.Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants-petitioners
relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. V. Mst.Katiji & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353;
G.Ramegowda Major etc. V. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897; State of Madhya Pradesh V. S.S.Akolkar,
AIR 1996 SC 1984 ; State of Nagaland V. Lipok AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC
2191 and a division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of
Orissa & 4 others V. Kantilata Sarangi, 2008 (II) OLR 942, submitted that
the question relating to condonation of delay should be liberally considered,
particularly when the State is the appellant. In this regard, it is submitted
that as the State Government is an impersonal machinery, they can not be
treated on the same footing as that of a private party and implicit in the very
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010]
nature of the Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the
decision making process. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the State
represents the larger public interest, some latitude must be given to the
State, when it files an application for condonation of delay.
Shri B.Routray, learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party has
referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.K.Ramachandran
V. State of Kerala and another, AIR 1998 SC 2276, in support of his
contention that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it
has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the
Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable
grounds. Accordingly, it is submitted that no special privilege can be
bestowed on the State, especially when no grounds have been taken in the
present application, explainining the inordinate delay in filing the restoration
application.
In the instant case, on a perusal of the present application filed for
condonation of delay, it is seen that the only ground regarding delay has
been stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application, which are extracted
below:-
“3. That it is submitted that there is no intentional delay or negligence to
deposit the cost as ordered by the Hon’ble Court. For non-compliance of the
order for which FAO is dismissed.
4.That the letter having been sent from the Govt. to the Inspector of
Schools, Bhadrak. The letter being in receipt by Appellant. No.3,Inspector of
Schools rushed to the Cells Office for preferring this Misc.Case and as such
appella nt No.3 is authorized to prefer this Misc.Case CMAPL.”
There is no doubt that the question of condonation of delay should be
liberally considered by the Courts for the cause of substantial justice and