Condonation of delay requires a bona fide explanation; internal file movement and bureaucracy are insufficient for government departments.

The Bombay HC refused to condone a 583-day delay in moving an application to set aside a self-operating order because the Revenue's explanation was incomplete and lacked bona fide particulars for the entire delay period. The affidavits did not explain when the office objections were noticed or why they remained unattended, and reliance on GST rollout and internal file movement was held insufficient. The Court reiterated that government bodies are equally bound by limitation and must furnish a reasonable, acceptable explanation supported by bona fide effort. The motion was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 583 days in moving the application to set aside the self-operating order should be condoned on the basis of the GST rollout and movement of files within the Revenue department.

Analysis: The explanation did not account for the entire period of delay, including the period before GST implementation, and did not disclose when or how the office objections were noticed to remain pending. The affidavits were found to be casual. The Court relied on the principle that government bodies are also bound by limitation and must offer a reasonable and acceptable explanation supported by bona fide effort; internal file movement and procedural red tape were held insufficient.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the motion was rejected against the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a reasonable, acceptable, and bona fide explanation, and mere movement of files or bureaucratic procedure is not sufficient cause, even for government departments.

---