Condonation of delay denied where missing file explanation lacked concrete steps, responsibility fixing, and sufficient cause.

Inordinate delay in filing special leave petitions was not excused because the explanation that the relevant file had been misplaced in the office of the Central Agency was unsupported by concrete steps to trace the file or fix responsibility for the lapse. The Court found that the application did not identify who was responsible, and the delay was explained in a routine and casual manner that failed to establish sufficient cause. The special leave petitions were therefore dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inordinate delay in filing the special leave petitions was liable to be condoned on the ground that the relevant file had been misplaced in the office of the Central Agency.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was found insufficient because the application did not disclose any concrete steps taken to trace the missing file or to fix responsibility for the lapse. The absence of any action to identify the person responsible, coupled with the routine and casual manner in which the delay was sought to be explained, did not establish sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the special leave petitions were dismissed as time-barred.

---