Condonation of delay failed where internal scrutiny and administrative reasons did not justify a 278-day lapse in appeal filing.

A delay of 278 days in filing an appeal was examined on the basis of whether the department had shown sufficient cause for condonation. A plea of internal scrutiny, administrative processing, and delayed communication of the instruction to appeal was found inadequate, as it did not explain the prolonged lapse and reflected a casual approach to the matter. The delay was therefore not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The stay application was also dismissed in consequence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 278 days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned and, if not, whether the appeal and stay application were liable to be dismissed as time-barred.

Analysis: The application for condonation was supported only by a plea of internal scrutiny at various levels and administrative procedures. The explanation also suggested that the direction to file the appeal had not been effectively communicated and was noticed only during periodic scrutiny of records. Such averments were found insufficient to establish sufficient cause for the heavy delay, and reflected a casual manner of handling the matter by the department.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred and the stay application also stood dismissed.

---