.abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5018 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (S) NO. 22632 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms.P. Samuel i/b Mr.R.V. Samuel for the appellant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. 2. This application is for condonation of delay of 550 days in filing of the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted two reasons in support of the application. She firstly submitted that the Divisional Office of the appellant is situated at Solapur while the power to take decision vests in the Regional Office situated in Mumbai. She secondly - 2 - submitted that the decision was required to be taken whether an appeal should be filed or not and that decision making process took some time in filing of the appeal and this has resulted in the delay. She therefore submitted that the delay should be condoned. 4. Perusal of the application, which is sworn on oath, shows that it is bereft of details. When the papers were sent from Solapur office to Mumbai office is not mentioned. On my query, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the papers were sent by courier and it would take about two days to reach papers from Solapur to Mumbai. This period of two days does not explain the delay of 550 days. The appellant had 90 days for filing the appeal. The application is completely silent why the papers could not be sent and the decision could not be taken within the period of 90 days. Whether there existed any special circumstance which required more time for taking the decision to file an appeal is a question of fact which cannot be answered affirmatively without there being any - 3 - explanation at all. 5. Assuming that since the appellant being a government company, some latitude can be shown, yet sufficient details as to the facts must be mentioned in the application to enable the court to scrutinise whether the delay was justified and has been satisfactorily explained. In the absence of any details, the delay cannot be condoned merely on the ipse dixit that the delay was caused on account of delay in the decision making process. 6. For these reasons, the civil application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)