Condonation of delay requires proof of arbitrary, capricious or unjust discretion before appellate interference is justified.

An appeal filed beyond the statutory limitation period was rejected where no condonation application was made and the explanation that the order was not received was not accepted on postal acknowledgment evidence. Interference with refusal to condone delay was held permissible only if the discretion had been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or unjustly; no such defect was shown, so the time-bar dismissal was justified and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was rightly rejected as time-barred and whether the refusal to condone the delay called for interference.

Analysis: The appeal before the authority was filed beyond the statutory period, with no application for condonation of delay. The explanation that the order was not received was not accepted on the basis of the postal acknowledgment evidence. The refusal to condone delay could be interfered with only if the exercise of discretion was shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or unjust, and no such infirmity was established.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal as barred by time was justified and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with a refusal to condone delay is warranted only where the discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or unjustly; absent such infirmity, the appellate forum will not substitute its view.

---