Condonation of delay requires a specific and credible explanation; departmental processing alone will not excuse inaction.

A plea for condonation of a 182-day delay in filing an appeal was rejected because the explanation did not satisfactorily account for the internal processing sequence or the significant gaps at multiple stages. Departmental procedure, by itself, was held insufficient to excuse inaction, and administrative delay still required a specific and credible explanation. The Court treated negligence or indolence in pursuing the appeal as relevant even though the appellant was a Government undertaking, and refused condonation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of a delay of 182 days in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was found unsatisfactory because the sequence of internal processing was not adequately accounted for, significant unexplained gaps remained at multiple stages, and the plea that the matter was delayed by departmental procedure did not, by itself, justify inaction. Administrative delay must still be explained with specificity, and negligence or indolence in pursuing an appeal cannot be ignored merely because the appellant is a Government undertaking.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained and condonation was refused.

---