Condonation of delay depends on concrete facts, and a bare plea of staff shortage was found insufficient.

A plea for condonation of delay requires concrete facts showing how the stated cause prevented timely filing; a bare assertion of staff shortage or manpower constraints is not enough. On the facts stated, the applicant offered only a general explanation without particulars, figures, or supporting material linking the shortage to the delayed appeal. The delay of 27 days was therefore found not to be supported by sufficient cause, the condonation application was rejected, and the appeal could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground of staff and manpower constraints and, if not, whether the appeal could proceed.

Analysis: The application for condonation was supported only by a general plea of staff shortage and manpower constraints. No facts, figures, or material were placed to show how the alleged shortage actually prevented timely filing of the appeal. A liberal approach to the expression "sufficient cause" was held to be available only when a concrete factual basis is shown; a bare assertion without supporting particulars was insufficient.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause for condonation of delay was not established, and the delay application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: As the delay was not condoned, the appeal could not be entertained and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea for condonation of delay must be supported by concrete facts showing how the asserted cause prevented timely action; a bare assertion of staff shortage does not amount to sufficient cause.

---