Condonation of delay requires a bona fide, specific explanation; bureaucratic process alone will not justify prolonged inaction.

A condonation application for 529 days' delay was rejected because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause. The explanation that office objections were inadvertently left unremoved and that there was a change in the panel of advocates was held inadequate, especially since the affidavit did not state when the department learned of the rejection order. The court reiterated that government departments are equally bound by limitation and must furnish a bona fide, reasonable and acceptable explanation supported by diligence; general references to bureaucratic process or impersonal machinery do not justify prolonged delay. The delay was not condoned and the motion was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of 529 days' delay in filing the notice of motion to set aside the self-operating order rejecting its appeal.

Analysis: The explanation offered was that office objections remained unremoved inadvertently and that there had been a change in the panel of advocates. The affidavit did not disclose the date on which the department learnt of the rejection order, and the reasons furnished did not satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay. The Court applied the principles that government departments are also bound by limitation and must provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation supported by bona fide diligence; mere reference to bureaucratic process or impersonal machinery is insufficient.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the motion was dismissed.

---