"Lethargic, Tardy and Indolent," Supreme Court Pulls Up Odisha Govt For 4 Months Delay in Filing SLP

The Supreme Court has said, condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay, however, a distinction ought to be drawn between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ that is proffered as cause for condonation of delay.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized, a different approach has to be adopted while this court is considering an application for condonation of delay in presentation of an appeal/application and when it sits in appeal over a discretionary order of the high court granting the prayer for condonation of delay.  

In the case of the former, whether to condone or not would be the only question whereas in the latter, whether there has been proper exercise of discretion in favour of grant of the prayer for condonation has to be examined, the bench said.  

Dismissing a plea, the bench said, ''We have found the State of Odisha to be utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent not only before the High Court but also before this court. Notwithstanding that its appeal was dismissed as time-barred by the High Court, this court has been approached by the State of Odisha four months after expiry of the period of limitation.''  

As per facts of the matter, the Managing Committee of Namatara Girls’ High School had approached the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Odisha with an application under Section 24B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 for release of grant-in-aid. By an order on December 30, 2013, the Tribunal allowed the application by directing the State of Odisha and the Director of Secondary Education to release grant-in-aid in favour of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school.

The State of Odisha filed an appeal, which was time-barred. Not only that, the appeal was not accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned order. Since presentation of the appeal, for a period of 8 years to be precise, the State of Odisha had not filed the certified copy of the impugned order. By an order on April 26, 2023, the High Court dismissed the appeal citing failure to file the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order as the reason.

It obtained the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order of December 30, 2013 on February 13, 2024. A week later, the State of Odisha filed an application seeking recall of the order of April 26, 2023. Together with such application was filed an application for condonation of delay seeking condonation of 291 days’ delay.  

Having noted that the certified copy of the impugned order was filed only on February 13, 2024, the High Court correctly observed that the appeal filed on October 16, 2015 was inherently defective and the delay in presenting the appeal is in excess of 11 years, the apex court said. Considering this position, the application for condonation of delay was rejected resulting in the application for recall being dismissed as time-barred, the court noted.

Examining the challenge to the High Court's order of February 21, 2025, the bench noted that there is a delay of 123 days in filing the special leave petition and a further delay of 96 days in re-filing the same after curing defects.  As the court started dictating an order of dismissal of the special leave petition, the state counsel sought its withdrawal, which was allowed. However, when the court was about to rise for the day, the counsel sought for recall of the order of dismissal. On instructions, the counsel said, the State would invite a detailed order with reasons.

In its order, the court said, ''No cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown for exercise of discretion in favour of the State of Odisha.'' The bench pointed out, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice.

"Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay. Despite all the latitude that is shown to a “State”, we are of the clear opinion that the cause sought to be shown here by the State of Odisha is not an explanation but a lame excuse. No case for exercise of discretion has been set up,'' the bench said.

The court dismissed the special leave petition as time-barred, and rejected the applications for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition and condonation of delay in re-filing the same.

Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors Vs Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Judgment: February 9, 2026