ORDER NO. 6 DT. 1.6.10

Appellant is present through Mr. A.Rahaman, Ld. Advocate.  Respondent is also present through Mr. A.Bhattacharya and Ms. Pratima Mishra, Ld. Advocates.  Heard the Ld. Advocates.  We have considered the application and we find that the impugned order was passed on 6.5.09 and the certified copy was applied for beyond the period of limitation on 16.6.09.  On the same date the certified copy was made available and it was taken delivery on 17.6.09 and  the Appeal was filed on 28.2.10.  The explanation given in the application is mainly contained in Para-5, which speaks of the accident of the Ld. Advocate on 25.6.09.  We are surprised that even thereafter it has not been stated when the Ld. Advocate recovered from the injury and started working and what steps he took in respect of the present Appeal.  The next explanation is in Para-7, which states that on 10.2.10 the Ld. Advocate contacted the petitioner and handed over the certified copy.  No explanation is available as to why the Appellant himself did not take any step whatsoever for such a long period and how the Ld. Advocate also discharged his duties in the given facts.  In the circumstances, we are not accepting the explanation of such a long period of 291 days in preferring the Appeal though we normally take liberal view as regards explanation of condonation of delay.  We find that for a long period there is no explanation whatsoever.  Not only the matter was dealt with casually, but also the explanation has not been stated in the application seriously.  In the circumstances, the application fails and is dismissed.  The Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.