STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DAITARY ROUT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE review petition out of which this Misc. Case arises has been filed by the State of Orissa challenging the legality of the order passed by this Court dated 22.11.1993 in O.J.C.No. 3768 of 1993. The impugned order was passed on 22.11.1993 and the review petition has been filed on 24.12.2010. Accordingly, there is delay of almost seventeen years in presenting the review petition.

(2.) IN paragraph -3 of the Misc. Case, it is stated that the review petitioner i.e. the State of Orissa represented through its Special Secretary to Government of Orissa, G.A. Department was not a party in the writ petition and the impugned order was passed behind the back of the review petitioner. The review petitioner could know about the said order on 13.10.2009 when the Power of Attorney Holder of opposite parties 2 to 8 submitted an application for issuance of No -Objection Certificate in respect of the land in question. It is further stated that while examining the records in connection with issuance of No Objection Certificate, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar was reminded to furnish the report along with relevant records/documents in August, 2010. In September, 2010 the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar submitted the report and file was processed and examined. Thereafter, the file was endorsed to Law Department on 12.9.2010 for its opinion as to whether the review petition is to be filed or not. The file returned from the Law Department on 3.11.2010 with an opinion to file a review petition against the impugned order. On 25.11.2010, file was re -endorsed to the Law Department for obtaining concurrence on the proposal for filing the review petition and it was received from the Law Department on 2.12.2010. Thereafter, the review petition was filed on 24.12.2010.

(3.) SHRI R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the Courts are always liberal while considering an application for condonation of delay specially when filed on behalf of the State authorities but in the present case, delay is almost 17 years and no reasonable explanation has been given in the petition filed for condonation of delay. The only ground taken in the petition is that the review petitioner was not a party to the writ application. The State of Orissa represented through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Excise, Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Collector, Puri and Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar were parties to the writ application. Once the State of Orissa is represented through a Department, it is no more open for the review petitioner to take a ground that General Administration Department was a necessary party. The Collector being the custodian of the property in dispute and the order having been passed in presence of the Collector represented through the learned Advocate General, the ground taken in the review petition for condonation of delay is unacceptable.