Liberal construction of sufficient cause justified condonation of delay where the explanation was bona fide and non-negligent.

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay under the proviso to Section 16(3) of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 is to be construed liberally where the applicant has acted bona fide and without negligence. The court applied this principle to a 39-day delay, accepting that the appeal was filed after legal advice and that the delay resulted from a communication gap and the time needed to prepare the appeal. On that explanation, the delay was treated as adequately explained and condonable, and the application for condonation was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 39-day delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned on the showing of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 16(3) of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 permits an appeal to be entertained after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. The governing principle under the law of limitation is that the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction and that discretion should be exercised to advance substantial justice where the appellant has not acted with negligence or lack of bona fides. On the facts, the appellant filed the appeal soon after receiving advice from counsel, and the delay was attributed to communication gap and the time taken to prepare and present the appeal. In these circumstances, the explanation was accepted as bona fide and adequate.

Conclusion: The delay was condonable and the application for condonation of delay was allowed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the explanation for delay is bona fide and the applicant has acted without negligence, the expression "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally so that disputes are decided on merits rather than on technical delay.

---