ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

140
certain amount of latitude is permissible where State and its functionaries
are litigants before the Court, but that does not mean that when no sufficient
cause has been shown and no plausible explanation has been given for the
inordinate delay in approaching the Court, the so-called liberal attitude
should be taken in all cases, where the State Government is the appellant.
The casual and careless approach of the State and its functionaries is
evident from the fact that the appeal (FAO No.146 of 2006) against the
judgment of the State Education Tribunal was filed after a delay of 376 days
and the same having been dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory
order, the present restoration application has been filed after a delay of 282
days.
It is settled law that time-barred cases should not be entertained by
Courts as the rights which have accrued to others by reason of delay in
approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a
P.S TO GOVT. OF ORISSA .-V- M.C. OF J .HIGH SCHOOL
reasonable explanation for the delay. The vested rights of the parties should
not be disrupted at the instance of a person who is guilty of culpable
egligence. – (See R.S.Deodhar V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC
259; and K.R.Mudgal V. R.P.Singh, AIR 1986 SC 2086).
Applying the principles of law, as discussed above, to the facts of the
present case and considering the grounds taken in the present application, I
find no sufficient and bona fide cause to condone the inordinate delay in
filing the restoration application.
This application for condonation of delay is rejected.
Misc.Case is accordingly dismissed.
CMAPL NO.320 OF 2009.
In view of the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, this
CMAPL is dismissed on the ground of limitation.