Heard learned counsel for the parties on condonation of delay.

          As per application for condonation of delay, delay is of 129 days in filing the first appeal though according to the office note, it is 131 days. The only explanation given by the appellant is in paragraph 2 of the application for condonation, which reads as under:

“That the final judgment was passed on 6.4.2009. The appellant took steps to seek legal opinion in the matter from their Advocate and the file was received back from them on 19.5.2009 and thereafter the said file alongwith legal opinion was sent to the Head Office. The Head Office referred the matter to RO-I at New Delhi who entrusted the matter to the Advocate who drafted the appeal and the same is filed on 26.10.2009.”

The above explanation can by no stretch of imagination be considered sufficient to condone delay of 129/131 days. No details have been given by the appellant in support of the contentions in paragraph-2 of the condonation application. When the matter was sent for legal opinion to the Advocate and why it took one month to give legal opinion and after receipt of the legal opinion why it took five months to file the appeal, has

-3-

not been explained except for a very vague and general explanation that the matter was referred to Head Office and then to RO-I at New Delhi and then entrusted to Advocate for drafting the appeal.

This Commission has examined the question of delay in filing the appeals and revisions in greater detail in Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana vs. Haryana Petro Chemical Ltd. Rewari in Revision Petition No.3498 of 2009 in order dated 4.12.2009 wherein we have referred to a large number of authorities of the Apex Court and have observed as under: -

“Thus, from the above judgements of the Apex Court, it is clear that no short jacket formula can be evolved for dealing with the application for condonation of delay and every case depends upon facts and circumstances of its own. It is now well settled that expression “sufficient cause” must be liberally construed in order to advance cause of justice.

It also must be remembered that after expiry of period of limitation, the opposite party acquires a valuable right and such valuable right cannot be set at naught unless sufficient cause is shown. It is also well settled that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other case, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the

-4-

explanation thereof is satisfactory. In addition, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible where Government is seeking condonation and a little play at the joints within reasonable limits is necessary. It does not mean that the Government bodies enjoy long rope and can get away without giving sufficient explanation only on the ground that the delay is sought by Government bodies.

Keeping in view need to promptly file appeals, the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors (supra) and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan (Supra) has observed that the Government at appropriate level should constitute legal calls and in the event of decision to file appeal, the officer responsible for filing appeal should take prompt action and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any.”

In light of the above, I do not find that any case has been made out for condoning delay of 129/131 days. In view of this the application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed with no order as to costs.