No. 3/13.04.2010.

Heard Mr. Abir Sarkar, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.  This is an application for condonation of delay of 694 days in preferring the appeal.  By way of explanation the Petitioner has disclosed facts which show two parts of explanation.  The first part is of filing a review application against the present impugned order which was misconceived proceeding and was ultimately rejected on 27.11.2009.  The appeal was actually filed on 10.03.2010 and as explanation for the balance period it has been stated that the Ld. Advocate in the Forum consumed some time in finding out a Ld. Advocate in the State Commission to prefer an appeal.  We are not convinced about the said explanation particularly when the Ld. Advocate who did not contest the proceeding in the Forum below was still depended on and there was no reason for taking that much time on the said Ld. Advocate but still then it appears that the Appellant was waiting for months before preferring the appeal only on the advice of the Ld. Advocate.  Further the next part of the explanation is Xmas vacation from 22.12.2009 till 03.01.2010.  As there is no Xmas vacation in this Commission we are not accepting the same as an explanation.  In the circumstances being not convinced about the explanation given the application is dismissed.  The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.