Inordinate appellate delay requires bona fide, cogent sufficient cause and cannot be condoned routinely.

The appellant sought condonation of a delay of 1,649 days in filing a writ appeal against the order dated 22.12.2021 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.1236 of 2018 concerning salt manufacturers.

The appellant stated that the judgment had not been communicated to him because he had lost contact with his counsel during the COVID-19 pandemic. He further relied on his status as a senior citizen, post-COVID complications, cardiac palpitations, and neurological issues as reasons for the delay.

He claimed that he acted promptly after learning of the dismissal, applying for a certified copy on 06.07.2026 and obtaining it on 09.07.2026.

The respondents opposed the condonation indirectly through the court’s assessment of whether sufficient cause had been established.

Whether the appellant had shown sufficient, bona fide, and cogent cause for condoning the delay of 1,649 days in filing the writ appeal?

Whether the delay could be condoned by relying on substantial justice or the merits of the proposed appeal despite the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay?

The Court applied the principle that delay and laches are relevant considerations in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, and that the court may refuse relief where negligence, omission, and lapse of time cause prejudice to the opposing party, as stated in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322.

Relying on Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104, and Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, 2025 INSC 672, the Court held that the length of delay is material; the applicant must first establish bona fides and sufficient cause; delay cannot be condoned as an act of generosity; and the court should consider the merits of the underlying case only where the explanation for delay and the opposing circumstances are otherwise evenly balanced.

The Court found that the appellant’s assertions regarding loss of contact with counsel during the pandemic, his age, and his medical conditions did not adequately explain the entire period of 1,649 days.

Although the appellant claimed to have acted promptly after obtaining knowledge of the impugned order, the Court held that promptness in July 2026 could not, by itself, account for the prolonged preceding inaction.

Applying the principles that inordinate delay requires a bona fide and cogent explanation and that substantial justice cannot override prejudice resulting from unexplained delay, the Court concluded that the affidavit disclosed no sufficient cause for condonation.

The Court therefore found it unnecessary to examine the merits of the proposed writ appeal.

Accordingly, CMP No.22098 of 2026 was dismissed, and consequently WA SR No.128998 of 2026 was rejected. No order was made as to costs.