Judgment sc-1986-1987-1-367-368

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A mentioned as 22nd July, 84) and it was aft" a period of two months, on 29th September, 1984 that the certified copy was despatched by the Collector of Central Excise to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance referred the Case to the Central Agency Section on l ith October, 1984. But the Central Agency Section sent back the case to the Ministry of Finance with the remark that the same should be sent to the Ministry of Law. This process of realisation that the case should have been referred to the Ministry of Law and not to the Ministry of Finance took about 24 days and thereafter, again, some time was taken up at the subsequent stages. The learned Additional Solicitor General gave his opinion on 18th December, 1984 It.at the special leave petition should be filed. But even thereafter, there was a delay of more than a month and a halfand on 7th July, 1985, a special leave petition was filed without offering any explanation for this delay at three stage,;. The Learned Additional Solicitor General requested us to give him an oppo1tunity to file a supplemental affidavit explaining the delay at the three stages. But we do not see why any further time should be granted to the petitioners tc· file a supplemental affidavit. The application 'for condonation of delay wa,; made on 7th January, 1985 and we are now in November 1986 and the petitioners thus had a period of about one year and nine months to rectify the defect by filing a supplemental affidavit but the petitioners have failed to do so. We do. not under the circumstances find any justification for condoning the delay and the application is. therefore rejected and so is the Special Leave Petition.

S.R. Petition dismissed. E

) \