IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No. 1747 of 2008 In Special Appeal No. 36 of 2008 H.N.B. Garhwal University and another .……… Appellants. Versus Bharat Singh Rana ……… Respondent With Delay Condonation Application No. 1745 of 2008 In Special Appeal No. 37 of 2008 H.N.B. Garhwal University and another .……… Appellants. Versus Rajendra Singh Kaintura ……… Respondent Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) By this common judgment, both CLMA Nos. 1747 of 2008 and 1745 of 2008 filed in both the appeals are being disposed of together. 2. We have perused very carefully the affidavits accompanying the delay condonation applications. Since the condonation applications by themselves do not contain any ground warranting condonation of delay, we have to revert to the affidavits to find out as to whether the applicants have advanced sufficient explanation in warranting the condonation of the delay. 3. Undoubtedly, the certified copy of the judgment under appeals, on the own showing of the applications were received by them in the last week of November, 2007. These appeals have been filed in the Registry of this Court on 3rd April, 2008. What all the applicants were doing in the intervening four months has not at all been explained. In para 4 of the applications the only explanation given is that in the two months of December, 2007 and January, 2008, “due to the administrative reasons” the officials of the University could not contact the counsel to seek further opinion in the matter. What were these “administrative reasons” which kept the applicants away from taking any decision about the filing of the appeals or prevented the official from contacting the counsel has not either been disclosed or explained to this Court. Not only that, no explanation is forthcoming as to what all happened in the months of February and March, 2008. 4. For the foregoing reasons, we are disinclined to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The applications are rejected. 5. Both the appeals are dismissed as time barred. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 09.04.2008 09.04.2008 LSR/Shiv