Condonation of delay fails where newspaper-based reconsideration is not sufficient cause, and delay length becomes immaterial.

Delay in filing an appeal was not condoned because a review or reconsideration said to have arisen from a newspaper report of a Supreme Court decision was not accepted as sufficient cause. The tribunal noted that similar grounds had already been rejected, and held that once the explanation for delay is inherently unacceptable, the length of the delay becomes immaterial. As the delay was not excused, the connected stay application and appeal could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground that the matter was under review before the Supreme Court and the application was filed after reconsideration of that review.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that similar grounds had already been rejected and that the reason advanced for the delay did not constitute sufficient cause. Reliance was placed on the principle that a review or reconsideration based on a newspaper report of a Supreme Court decision is not a valid ground for condonation, and the length of delay was held to be immaterial once the explanation itself was unacceptable.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned, and the connected stay application and appeal also could not survive.

---