Sufficient cause for condonation of delay applied liberally where government reconsideration and public interest justified a late appeal.

Delay in filing an appeal under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was examined through the settled liberal construction of "sufficient cause", with recognition that governmental delay must be viewed in light of collective decision-making. The Court treated the public interest element, the foreign exchange stake, later reconsideration, and circumstances casting doubt on the earlier choice not to appeal as adequate grounds for condonation. Objections based on an earlier conscious decision, absence of a specific plea of bad faith, and alleged insufficiency of proof were not accepted on the totality of circumstances, and the delay was condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 should be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause, public interest, and alleged bad faith in the earlier decision not to appeal.

Analysis: The relevant question was whether the Government had shown sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond limitation. In considering that question, the Court applied the settled approach that the expression "sufficient cause" is to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice, and that governmental delay may be assessed with due regard to the collective and institutional character of governmental decision-making. The Court also held that the material placed before it, including the size of the foreign exchange involved, the public interest element, the later reconsideration of the matter, and the circumstances suggesting that the earlier refusal to appeal may not have been a sound exercise of discretion, were sufficient to justify condonation. The Court further held that the objections based on conscious earlier decision, absence of a specific plea of bad faith, and alleged insufficiency of proof did not defeat the application when the totality of circumstances was considered.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the application was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---