Condonation of delay fails where internal file movement is a vague excuse and no specific sufficient cause is shown.

Condonation of delay requires a specific, credible and convincing explanation showing sufficient cause, even where the appellant is the State. A vague plea that the file was under consideration or moving between offices was insufficient, particularly in the face of a prolonged delay and an already extended statutory limitation period. General administrative delay and internal file movement did not establish that the delay was unavoidable despite due care and caution. The explanation failed to justify both the delay before the Tribunal and the further delay before the High Court, so the appeals were not entitled to condonation and were liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the High Court was liable to be condoned on the facts shown.

Analysis: Condonation of delay depends on the facts of each case and the existence of sufficient cause must be established on a credible explanation showing that the delay was unavoidable despite due care and caution. A vague and general plea that the file was under consideration or was shuttling between offices was held insufficient, especially where the delay was colossal and the statutory period of limitation for the State was already long. The explanation offered did not justify the delay before the Tribunal or the further delay before the High Court.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For inordinate delay, a party must show a specific and convincing sufficient cause; general administrative delay or internal file movement does not justify condonation.

---