Three Hundred And Twenty-Five Days Late, And The File Movement Was The Only Answer
The State of Odisha explained its delay by listing the dates on which its file moved from desk to desk. The Court held that is not a reason.
The Court held that no explanation had been placed on record for why the appeal could not be filed in time, that the State Government does not have a different statutory period for filing a writ appeal, and that giving the dates indicating movement of the file does not qualify as ‘sufficient cause’. With no sufficient cause for a 325-day delay, the application was dismissed and the writ appeal dismissed for delay and laches.
- Noting file movement is not an explanation. It describes the delay rather than justifying it.
- The State has the same limitation as anyone else — there is no separate statutory period for it.
- Every interim order fell with the appeal, including one made as recently as July.
- The original direction now has a deadline — the 2024 order is to be complied with within two months.
- Court
- High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
- Bench
- Justice MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA, Justice MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
- Citation
- W.A. No. 1450 of 2025
- Case
- W.A. No. 1450 of 2025
- Decided
- 3 September 2026
- Outcome
- Application to condone delay dismissed; writ appeal dismissed
What the State offered by way of explanation
The application sought condonation of a delay of 325 days in filing an intra-court appeal.
What was placed before the Court was an account of the dates on which the file had moved.
Why that was not enough
No explanation was placed on record for the Court's consideration, and nothing was stated as to why the intra-court appeal could not have been filed within the statutory period.
The State Government does not have a different statutory period for filing a writ appeal. Giving the dates indicating movement of the file does not qualify as sufficient cause.
There being no sufficient cause shown for the inordinate delay, the Court was not inclined to entertain the application. It was dismissed, and the writ appeal consequently dismissed for delay and laches on the appellants' part.
What follows
On the dismissal of the writ appeal, all interim orders stand vacated, including one passed in July 2026.
The Court recorded its expectation that the order of 23 August 2024 in the underlying writ petition will be complied with in its letter and spirit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Does the government get extra time to file an appeal?
No. The Court held the State does not have a different statutory period for filing a writ appeal.
Is showing the file's movement a sufficient cause?
No. The Court held it does not qualify as sufficient cause for condoning delay.
Seeking condonation of delay for a government appellant
- Explain why each period passed, not merely where the file was; the difference decided this case.
- Do not argue for a longer period because the appellant is the State — there is none.
- Deal with the whole delay, not the convenient part of it.
- Remember that interim protection falls with the appeal, so the underlying order revives immediately.
Source. High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.A. No. 1450 of 2025, decided 3 September 2026 by Justice MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA, Justice MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Orissa at Cuttack and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in