Condonation of delay in appeal upheld where rejection was mechanical and sufficient cause was not independently examined.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellate authority had rejected it mechanically without independently examining sufficient cause. The Court accepted the explanation regarding non-service of the assessment order and the circumstances stated for the delay, and treated the appeal as a valuable statutory right rather than an ineffective alternative to writ relief. The rejection endorsement was set aside, the delay was condoned on payment of costs, and the appellate authority was directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal without examining whether sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay, and whether the delay deserved to be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal rejection was not based on an independent consideration of the cause shown for delay, but rested on a mechanical reliance on an earlier decision. The Court also noted the petitioner's explanation regarding non-service of the assessment order and the circumstances pleaded for the delayed filing. In the facts of the case, the appellate remedy was not treated as an efficacious alternative to writ relief, and the Court relied on the principle that an appeal is a valuable statutory right. Applying these considerations, and following the approach adopted in a similar matter, the Court found that the delay could be condoned on terms.

Conclusion: The rejection endorsement was set aside and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned on payment of costs, with a direction to the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

---