Condonation of delay refused where the wrong-forum explanation failed and the appeal was not pursued with due diligence.

Delay in filing appeal was not condoned because pursuing the wrong forum did not amount to sufficient cause where the correct appellate forum was indicated in the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the appellant lacked the urgency and diligence required after limitation had expired, and that time was spent on file movement, discussions, and preparation even after the proper forum was known. The explanation of bona fide mistake was therefore rejected, and the appeal failed at the threshold on limitation without examination of the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground that the matter had first been pursued before the wrong forum under a bona fide belief.

Analysis: The admitted delay was examined against the sequence of steps taken after the limitation period had expired. The Tribunal held that the appellant had not acted with the urgency and diligence required, and that time was spent in file movement, discussions, and preparation of the appeal after the correct forum was already known. The preamble to the impugned order itself indicated the proper appellate forum, so the earlier resort to revision before the Government of India could not be treated as a sufficient cause for the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the explanation of wrong forum was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed at the threshold on limitation and was dismissed without examination of the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Filing before a wrong forum does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation where the correct forum was ly indicated and the litigant did not prosecute the remedy with due diligence.

---