Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court of India has examined multiple appeals filed by the State of Odisha against the dismissal of writ appeals by the Orissa High Court due to inordinate delay. The court recorded its concerns over the handling of the matter by state authorities, particularly the concerned department and the Land Records Office. Despite previously dismissing similar special leave petitions due to delays, the Supreme Court decided to examine the case on its merits, considering the broader implications on a large number of individuals and the state exchequer.

The appeals arose from writ petitions before the Orissa High Court, where the state had faced adverse orders. Subsequently, it filed writ appeals, but these were dismissed by the High Court on the ground of excessive delay in filing. The state then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court noted that the state had previously filed multiple special leave petitions (SLPs) on the same issue, but many of them were filed belatedly and in a piecemeal manner rather than as a consolidated challenge.

The Supreme Court recorded: "It is not a case concerning a few employees, rather it affects a large number, and in turn, the State Exchequer. It is for this reason that we were persuaded to look into these matter(s), although initially, we were not inclined to interfere, considering the lethargic approach of the State in pursuing these matters, and the inordinate delay caused, which was never explained in any satisfactory manner."

The dispute concerns land records and administrative decisions that impact a large number of individuals in Odisha. The Orissa High Court, in dismissing the state’s writ appeals, recorded that the delay in filing was excessive and remained unexplained. Following this, the State of Odisha filed multiple special leave petitions before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's orders.

The Supreme Court noted that the state continued to file petitions incrementally rather than presenting a comprehensive challenge. It recorded that the approach taken by the state suggested an attempt to fulfill procedural formalities rather than seeking substantive relief.

The Supreme Court recorded: "The casual manner in which the State authorities, particularly the concerned department of the State and the Land Records Office, have handled the matters is a matter of concern."

The Supreme Court observed that the petitions raised significant public interest issues, warranting a review on merits despite the state's delay. The court recorded that the state’s approach had caused substantial delay, which was not satisfactorily explained at any stage.

The judgment stated: "The State though kept filing one Special Leave Petition after another before this Court, not in one go but one after another, most of them belatedly, to complete a mere formality."

The court also noted that similar special leave petitions had previously been dismissed on grounds of delay, yet the state continued to file fresh petitions on the same dispute without addressing the delay. It recorded that this pattern of litigation indicated a lack of diligence by the state authorities.

Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court determined that the case had broad implications and agreed to review it. The judgment recorded: "All the same, we are now examining the cases on its merits considering the importance of the matter(s)."

The court recorded that the state’s litigation practices in such matters would require scrutiny to prevent recurrence of similar delays in future cases involving public interest.

Upon examining the matter on merits, the Supreme Court issued directions regarding the resolution of the dispute. The court recorded that the state authorities must adopt a structured approach when filing appeals and must avoid unnecessary delays. The judgment stated that the state must streamline its litigation process to prevent similar procedural lapses in the future.

The Supreme Court recorded: "The manner in which the litigation has been conducted by the State shows a clear lack of diligence. Such an approach cannot be condoned in matters involving public interest and state revenue."

The court further directed the state authorities to ensure that legal proceedings are conducted with greater efficiency. It stated that delays in filing appeals, particularly in cases with broader public impact, must be adequately explained with valid reasons.

Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2146 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

[Read/Download order]