The State Of Odisha vs. Saraswati Bhoi

1

ITEM NO.23, 24, 25 + 30 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 31635/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-07-2022 in WP(C) No.6861/2021 passed by the High Court Of Orissa At Cuttack)

STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

PANCHANAN PANDA Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.167593/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.167595/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 31697/2023 ( IA No.168348/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.168349/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 31722/2023 ( IA No.173559/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.173560/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 34161/2023 ( IA No.169982/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.169977/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )

Date : 06-09-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

Ms. Anindita Pujari, AOR

For Parties Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR

Mr. Maitreya Saha, Adv.

Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Radhika Mohapatra, Adv. Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.09.06 Signature Not Verified

Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Ashish Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv.

Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

This is confusion worst confounded by the reason of the lackadaisical attitude in which the petitioner-State has been prosecuting the litigation qua the cause.

Their grievance was that the Central Administrative Tribunal passed an order without even giving them a chance to file the counter affidavit. They took upward of two years to challenge that order before the High court and thereafter before this Court also there has been delay.

The result of the aforesaid is that some cases have been dismissed on the ground of limitation while in others notices have been issued. Some matters were remitted back to the High Court and again came back. These matters are before different Benches.

The appropriate solution to this problem would be that the petitioner-State must make a comprehensive list relating to the issue of RACP of all the cases arising therefrom pending before this Court and submit it to the Registry which will then list all these cases together before one Bench after obtaining the orders of Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India.

(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

2