Sufficient cause for condonation and valid appeal authorisation may be found where internal processing explains the filing delay.

A departmental appeal is not invalid merely because a copy of the specific authorisation is omitted from the papers served on the respondent, provided the authorisation itself exists and relates to the appeal. Delay in filing may be condoned where the explanation shows sufficient cause, including bona fide internal processing, discussion, preparation of papers, and intervening holidays, and where there is no negligence or avoidable inaction. The operative principle is that sufficiency of cause must be assessed on the facts of each case, and administrative processing time may, in appropriate circumstances, justify condonation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the departmental appeal was filed with proper authorisation; and (ii) whether the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Issue (i): whether the departmental appeal was filed with proper authorisation.

Analysis: The appeal was supported by an authorisation specifically issued by the Collector in favour of the Assistant Collector for this case. The omission to enclose a copy of the authorisation with the appeal papers served on the respondents did not affect the validity of the appeal, as the authorisation itself was found to be in existence and referable to the present matter.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to have been filed under proper authorisation and was not invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was examined in the light of the explanation furnished, the period consumed in internal processing, discussions, preparation of papers, and the holidays falling within the relevant period. The Tribunal applied the principle that the sufficiency of cause must be judged on the facts of each case and that governmental processing time may, in appropriate cases, constitute sufficient cause. On the facts presented, the delay was not found to be attributable to negligence or avoidable inaction.

Conclusion: The delay of 19 days was condoned and the appeal was admitted.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objections failed, the departmental appeal was admitted, and the matter was directed to proceed to hearing on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the explanation shows sufficient cause arising from bona fide processing and decision-making steps, and a specific authorisation for the appeal is not invalidated by the mere omission to annex its copy with the served appeal papers.

---