High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 10 OHC CK 0205

State Of Odisha vs Balaram Barik

Orissa High Court · Decided on 31 October 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S. Raman, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
RVWPET(RP) No.9 Of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 273 words

RVWPET(RP) No.9 of 2015/I.A. No.13 of 2021

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Review Petition No.09 of 2015 (renumbered as RVWPET(RP) No.9 of 2015) was filed before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar on 06.02.2015 to review / recall of the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.736 of 2014.

3.

The Interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 300 days in preferring the Review Petition.

4.

Heard Mr. Biplab Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Petitioner.

5.

As it appears, against the order impugned dated 27.03.2014, the Review petition was filed on 06.02.2015, after lapse of more than ten months. Therefore, the Review petition suffers from delay and laches. Further, it appears that sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay of 300 days in preferring the review petition. That apart, no due diligence has been indicated in the petition in preferring the review petition.

6.

In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the review petition at this belated stage, as the same suffers from delay and laches. Keeping in view the judgment/order of this Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), which has been confirmed by the apex Court, vide order dated 05.04.2023 in S.L.P.(C) Diary No.9259 of 2023, the present RVWPET(RP) No.9 of 2015 deserves to be dismissed.

7.

Accordingly, the interlocutory application merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequentially, the review petition is also dismissed.

…………………………