Plausible reasons for delay can be considered for condonation of delay, and each day's delay is not required to be explained as per legal precedent.

ORDER (Heard through video conferencing) : – Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S. R. Saxena, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

With the consent, heard finally.

The challenge is mounted in this petition to the order dated 17-11-2020 Annexure P/4, whereby the learned Commission/Appellate Court has rejected the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to know about the order of Court below dated 17-3-2020 upon receiving the intimation from the letter of Mining Department dated 9-9-2020. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner obtained certified copy of the said order and filed the aforesaid appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. During this time, because of pandemic related problems also, the delay was caused. The delay should have been condoned. The finding of Court below that each day’s delay needs to be explained is bad in law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the impugned judgment.

4. In our view, the petitioner has given plausible reasons for belately filing the appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ummer vs. Pottengal Subida and others, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 2599-2600 of 2018 opined that each day’s delay is not required to be explained.

5. In our view, the learned Commissioner has taken a hyper-technical view while rejecting the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

6. Resultantly, the order dated 17-11-2020 is set aside.

7. The application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

8. The learned Commissioner shall decide the appeal on the merits of the case expeditiously.

9. The petition is disposed off.