ORDER

1.          The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 172 days as per the contention of the appellants and along with the appeal, an application I.A. No. 7538 of 2019, seeking condonation of delay has been filed.  It is contented in the application that the copy of the impugned order had been received by the appellants only on 15.10.2018 and the period of limitation had started running w.e.f. 16.10.2018.  After the impugned order was received, the matter was sent to the legal cell, which was received in the legal cell on 29.10.2018 and the concerned officials dealt with the orders on file and on 08.11.2018 the file was sent to the Law Officer.  The Law Officer recommended filing of an appeal.  Thereafter, the report from the accounts branch was sought on 01.02.2019 and the file was marked to higher authority for approval and also for engaging panel counsel.  On 14.03.2019, the Chief Administrator had approval for filing of the first appeal.  Thereafter the instructions were issued to the panel counsel for drawing the first appeal and the draft was prepared and was sent for vetting on 19.03.2019.  It was received back on 20.03.2019 and file was received by the counsel on 10.04.2019.  The documents were in Gurmukhi, hence the translation through a local translator in Delhi was sought and he retained the documents for a considerable time and returned it with grammatically incorrect translation on 25.04.2019.  The counsel thereafter sought for the translated copy of the said documents from the appellants on 26.04.2019.  It was received on 29.04.2019 and finally the appeal was filed on 06.05.2019.

2.          It is submitted that since the appellant is a government department and there are various steps to be taken before final decision for filing an appeal and preparing of the documents can be taken, so delay was inevitable and had to happen because of the administrative reasons.  It is submitted that delay was unintentional and bona-fide; hence the delay should be condoned.  Although learned counsel for the appellants have mentioned various case laws in the application but has relied on only two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemlata Verma Vs. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. In Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2019 decided on 01-07-2019 and in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987 decided on 19.02.1987 during the course of arguments.

3.          We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.  Although the Registry has noted that the delay is of about 390 days from the date of impugned order, but learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the noting in the copy of the impugned order itself, shows that the certified copy was received by the appellants only on 15.10.2018.  We accept this contention of learned counsel since they were supported by documents on record, hence period of limitation can be said to be started from 16.10.2018.  The period of limitation thus expired on 14.11.2018.  Admittedly, there is a delay of 172 days in filing the present appeal.  The delay is only attributed to the administrative reasons for movement of file from one desk to another and delayed response of the officers in taking decision which they obviously delayed and had not acted promptly.  Although they were aware of the fact that there is a period of limitation for filing of the appeal was only 30 day.  It is a settled proposition of law that parties are required to act diligently.  They are also required to explain the delay of each and every day.  The condonation is not a matter of right and the courts are refrained from exercising their jurisdiction to condone the delay where no sufficient reasons are shown.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the catena of judgments and also in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (Supra) has clearly held as under:

“1.