Condonation of delay is a discretionary power based on 'sufficient cause'; a clear distinction exists between a valid 'explanation' and a mere 'excuse' (such as misplacing files), the latter of which does not justify condoning inordinate delays.

ORDER

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that there is a huge inordinate delay of 242 days in the filing of the appeal. The only explanation given is that the appeal had been tendered before this Commission on 14.01.2025 and the office of this Commission reverted back the same with an information that the appeal was defective. We failed to understand as to why the counsel did not take any steps to make an inquiry about the appeal from January, 2025 to July, 2025. There is no explanation in that regard, rather the explanation given is that the Registry informed them late.

2. The second ground taken is that in June, 2025 the counsel shifted his case files to a different office and during that shifting the file of the present case got misplaced. This is not an explanation. This is only an excuse as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, Paragraphs 30 to 32, which are as follows:

“30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial

31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an “explanation” and an “excuse”. An “explanation” is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an “explanation” from an “excuse”. Although people tend to see “explanation” and “excuse” as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

32. An “excuse” is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an “excuse” would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.”

3. In view of this we do not find any cogent or valid or even sufficient cause having been explained by the appellant in the filing of this appeal. In view of this unsatisfactory and completely casual explanation the delay condonation application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also consigned.