Statutory outer limit on condonation of delay bars late appeals and cannot be extended through writ jurisdiction.

Where a statute fixes an outer limit for condonation of delay, the first appellate authority has no power to entertain an appeal filed beyond that limit. The commentary explains that once the legislature has restricted the discretion to condone delay, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court in writ jurisdiction can extend limitation or confer a jurisdiction the statute does not provide. The legally correct result is refusal to entertain the time-barred appeal, and no interference is warranted where the filing exceeded the prescribed condonable period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate authority could condone delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutorily permitted period, and whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of the time-barred appeal.

Analysis: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed far beyond the permissible period of limitation. The statutory scheme allowed condonation only up to the additional period expressly provided, and no further discretion vested in the appellate authority to entertain an appeal filed beyond that outer limit. Where the legislature has curtailed the power to condone delay, the appellate authority cannot assume such power, and the High Court cannot, in writ jurisdiction, confer a jurisdiction that the statute withholds.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the appeal as barred by limitation was in law, and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected because the delay exceeded the statutory condonable period and the appellate authority lacked power to extend limitation further.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute prescribes an outer limit for condonation of delay, an appellate authority has no power to entertain an appeal filed beyond that limit, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to enlarge the statute-bound discretion.

---