IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 386 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 18th August 2010. M/s Ralson [India] Limited Petitioner through Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate. Versus P.S.E.B. and others Respondents through Mr. H.S.Grewal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Ombudsman, Electricity, Punjab against the order dated 21.08.2008 [Annexure P-10] passed by the Grievances Redressal Forum. As there was delay in filing of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application seeking condonation thereof. The Appellate Forum has, however, rejected the petitioner's application after observing that the material on record did not substantiate the plea taken by the petitioner regarding misplacement of the file in the office of the learned counsel. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit supporting the conclusion drawn by the Ombudsman while declining the application for condonation of delay. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has categorically averred that the appeal could not be filed on time as the file of the case was misplaced in the office of the counsel for the petitioner. It has also been averred that after considerable efforts, the file was reconstructed and the appeal was filed without loss of time. In support of the plea regarding misplacement of the file in the counsel's office, affidavit of the Clerk to the Counsel has also been appended. It is true that on attainment of finality, an order may confer some legal right but such a right is not of indefeasible nature. In the matter of condonation of delay, the Courts/Tribunals oftenly act liberally unless it is found that the explanation tendered by the party suffers from the disqualifications like mala-fide, fraud, mis- representation of facts or sheer negligence etc. No such finding has been returned against the petitioner. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 06.10.2009 [Annexure P-12] is set aside and the Ombudsman, Electricity, Punjab is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law. Dasti. August 18, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE