Delay condonation requires a full day-by-day explanation; a vague internal approval narrative was held inadequate.

Delay condonation for appeals requires a specific, satisfactory explanation covering the period of delay; a bare statement that the matter was considered at various levels and later approved was found wholly inadequate. The note records that the explanation did not account for the delay day by day, and the request for a further opportunity to explain was declined because the legal requirement had long been settled. On that basis, the delay was not condoned and the condonation applications were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 86 days in filing each appeal deserved condonation on the explanation furnished.

Analysis: The applications stated only that, after deliberations at various levels, the competent authority decided to file the appeals and approval was granted on 30.09.2016. The explanation did not account for the delay day by day and was found to be wholly inadequate. The request for a further opportunity to explain the delay was declined, the requirement of law having been long settled.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed.

---