Condonation of delay requires a fair hearing and recorded reasons; time-bar dismissal set aside and remanded.

An application for condonation of delay must be considered after affording the party a fair hearing, and refusal to condone must be supported by recorded reasons. Where the appellate authority rejected the delay request without recording the appellant's reasons or explaining why they were insufficient, the order was vitiated for breach of natural justice. The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was sustainable when the appellant sought condonation of delay and no hearing was granted before rejecting the request.

Analysis: The appellant had filed an application setting out the reasons for the delay and seeking condonation. The order did not record those reasons or explain why they were insufficient. Refusal to afford an opportunity of hearing before deciding the question of delay amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice. The matter required reconsideration with a broad approach to condonation.

Conclusion: The order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after hearing the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained relief by way of remand, and the delay question was left to be reconsidered afresh by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for condonation of delay must be decided after giving the party a fair opportunity of hearing, and reasons for refusing condonation must be recorded; otherwise, the order is vitiated by violation of natural justice.

---