Condonation of Delay refused where no satisfactory explanation was given for a long gap in filing the appeal.

Delay in filing the appeal was not shown to be supported by sufficient cause, because the impugned order had been received in May 1993 but the appeal was filed only in October 1996 without specific reasons for the interval. Mere correspondence with the authorities was held insufficient to explain the delay, and the cited precedent was treated as factually inapplicable. Condonation was therefore refused, the application was dismissed, and the appeal did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained so as to justify condonation.

Analysis: The application disclosed receipt of the impugned order in May 1993, but the appeal was filed only in October 1996. No specific reasons were furnished to explain the long delay, and mere correspondence with the authorities was held insufficient to constitute satisfactory explanation or sufficient cause. The reliance placed on the cited precedent was found inapplicable on its facts.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained and condonation was refused. The application was dismissed, and the appeal consequently did not survive.

---