Generic administrative explanations do not constitute sufficient cause to condone inordinate delay.

The State of Tamil Nadu and its officials sought to appeal an order dated 1 March 2023 in W.P. No. 3294 of 2023.

Their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act sought condonation of a 649-day delay.

The appellants stated that the certified copy was served on 22 June 2023 and attributed the delay to discussions, deliberations, and procedural, administrative, and circumstantial factors, without providing further particulars.

Whether the appellants demonstrated sufficient cause to condone the 649-day delay in filing the writ appeal.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay upon sufficient cause.

In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, the Supreme Court recognised that delay is relevant to the exercise of judicial discretion and that the discretion must be exercised judicially and reasonably.

Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board and Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran establish that the length of delay and the bona fides and adequacy of the explanation must be examined first; delay is not to be condoned as a matter of course or merely on grounds of substantial justice.

The appellants’ explanation referred generally to official discussions and administrative or circumstantial factors but did not identify specific, valid reasons accounting for the 649-day delay.

Applying the cited principles, the Court found the explanation insufficient and declined to rely on the merits of the proposed appeal to overcome that deficiency.

It dismissed the condonation application and consequently rejected the writ appeal at the SR stage; there was no order as to costs.