This appeal is filed after delay of 62 days. The application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant purportedly shows that the impugned order dated 06.11.2009 was communicated without any delay and the appellant had the knowledge thereof. It is alleged that the advocate of the appellant had moved an application for copy of the order in Dec. 2009, certified copy was received on 22.01.2010. It is further alleged that opinion was sought from the advocate in the second week of February and after the said opinion was given, the appellant counsel came to Delhi for drafting the application in the second week of March 2010. The advocate at New Delhi needed certain documents which were not available in the case file and, therefore, the delay was committed in receiving the said documents and due to which the delay has occurred. 2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant, it is difficult to comprehend the reasons put forth in the application and of being satisfactory nature. There was no reason for causing delay in filing of the application for copy of the order of the State Commission. Moreover, when advocate of the appellant had expressed opinion that filing of the appeal was necessary, then again taking of further time in calling for some more documents by the advocate at Delhi and drafting of the appeal is also inexplicable. Though the impugned order was rendered on 06.11.2009 and was within the knowledge of the appellant, yet it is stated that application for copy was submitted somewhere in Dec. 2009. The time consumed in the entire process of preparing draft of the appeal is also shown to be sufficient cause for the delay. 3. We are of the opinion that the delay is not duly explained to the satisfaction of this Commission. The delay condonation application is liable to be dismissed for want of sufficient explanation. Hence the application is dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant in this Commission be remitted to the State Commission for disbursement.