Inordinate unexplained delay warrants dismissal where the appellant’s presence establishes knowledge of the order.

The appellant challenged the order dated 3 December 2024 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed Writ Petition No. 34010/2024.

The dispute arose from an order dated 27 October 2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Case No. 79/Appeal/2017-18.

The appellant claimed that he was unaware of that order and, upon learning of it, filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner on 7 July 2021 along with an application for condonation of delay.

The appeal was dismissed on 3 August 2021 as time-barred, and the subsequent review application was rejected on 29 July 2024 as not maintainable.

The Division Bench heard the writ appeal against that decision.

Whether the authorities and the learned Single Judge erred in refusing to condone the delay of approximately two and a half years in filing the appeal against the SDO’s order dated 27 October 2018?

Whether the appellant’s plea that he lacked knowledge of the SDO’s order was supported by the record?

Whether the alleged denial of an effective opportunity of hearing and violation of natural justice warranted interference with the orders of the authorities and the learned Single Judge?

The Court applied the principles governing condonation of delay, namely that an applicant must disclose a sufficient, credible, and satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay, particularly where the delay is substantial.

It further applied the limited scope of interference in appellate or supervisory jurisdiction, under which interference is justified only where the impugned decision is perverse, contrary to the record, affected by jurisdictional error, or results in a violation of natural justice.

The Court also applied the principle that a plea of lack of knowledge of an order must be established from the record and cannot prevail where the order was passed in the party’s presence.

The Court found that the SDO’s order dated 27 October 2018 had been passed in the appellant’s presence, and therefore rejected the assertion that the appellant was unaware of it.

Since the appeal was filed only on 7 July 2021, after an unexplained delay of approximately two and a half years, and the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory or day-to-day explanation, the authorities were justified in refusing condonation of delay.

The appellant also failed to identify any material demonstrating that the findings of the Additional Commissioner or the learned Single Judge were perverse or contrary to the record.

The allegation of denial of hearing was likewise unsupported by the material before the Court and did not disclose a violation of natural justice warranting interference.

The writ appeal was dismissed, the order dated 3 December 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed, and there was no order as to costs.