Statutory appeal maintainability depends on being a person aggrieved; long delay also requires full explanation.

A statutory appeal lies only at the instance of a person aggrieved by the impugned order; mere summons or participation as a witness does not confer maintainability. The appellants were not parties to the adjudication order and failed to establish any statutory basis to invoke the appellate remedy, so the appeals were not maintainable. Long delay will be condoned only on a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of default; the explanation based on prior High Court proceedings did not cover the whole delay, and sufficient cause was not shown. The Tribunal therefore declined to entertain the appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals were maintainable at the instance of persons who were not parties to the adjudication order, and (ii) whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the long delay in filing the appeals.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals were maintainable at the instance of persons who were not parties to the adjudication order.

Analysis: The right of appeal is purely statutory and can be exercised only by a person aggrieved by the decision or order. Under Section 81 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, an appeal lies only from the specified orders, and the appellant must establish that the impugned order adversely affects his legal position. Mere issue of summons or participation as a witness in the proceedings does not confer a right of appeal. On the facts, the appellants were not parties to the adjudication order and had not established a statutory basis for invoking the appellate remedy against that order.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the long delay in filing the appeals.

Analysis: The delay was exceptionally long and the explanation based on pursuit of remedies before the High Court did not satisfactorily account for the entire period of default. The observation of the High Court regarding availability of an alternate remedy did not amount to a direction to entertain time-barred appeals. No adequate cause was shown for the further delay after the High Court proceedings ended, and the requirement of explaining the delay was not met.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause for condonation of delay was not established.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to entertain the appeals, holding that the appellants lacked maintainability and had also failed to justify the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appeal can be maintained only by a person aggrieved within the meaning of the governing provision, and long delay will not be condoned unless the appellant satisfactorily explains the entire period of default.

---