Condonation of delay refused where unexplained file movement showed negligence, leaving the Reference Application time-barred.

Delay in filing the Reference Application was not condoned because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the period beyond limitation. The file movement reflected only routine departmental processing, with substantial unexplained gaps and no circumstance beyond the applicant's control. As the explanation disclosed negligence rather than a satisfactory justification in a time-bound matter, the application was dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the Reference Application should be condoned and the application entertained on merits.

Analysis: The delay beyond the prescribed period was not satisfactorily explained. The time chart showed routine movement of the file at different stages, with substantial gaps and no circumstance beyond the control of the applicant established. The matter was time-bound, had already been processed earlier in the department, and the explanation disclosed negligence rather than sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the Reference Application was dismissed as time-barred.

---