Condonation of delay requires a consistent, credible explanation; contradictory medical documents do not justify late filing.

Condonation of delay requires a cogent, consistent and credible explanation showing sufficient cause. The appellate authority found the filing was beyond the permitted period even after the COVID-19 extension, and the explanation based on medical grounds was rejected because the supporting prescription and certificate referred to different ailments and came from different practitioners. As the documents did not establish a coherent basis for the late filing, the dismissal of the appeal for delay was upheld and no condonation was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of inordinate delay and whether the petitioner showed sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the period allowed, even after taking into account the period extended during the COVID-19 situation. The explanation for the delay was held to be unsatisfactory, as the claimed medical materials were found to be inconsistent with one another. The prescription and medical certificate referred to different ailments and were issued by different medical practitioners, which did not establish a coherent or credible basis for the delayed filing.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal for delay was upheld, and no case for condonation of delay was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking condonation of delay must offer a cogent and consistent explanation establishing sufficient cause; contradictory and unconvincing medical documents do not justify condonation of substantial delay.

---