ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. There are two applications before us, one for condonation of the delay of the appeal and the other for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty imposed on the appellant. The impugned order was received by the appellant on 7.7.2005, a fact pleaded by the appellant himself in the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was filed on 14.12.2005 with a delay of 67 days. The appellant, in one part of his petition for condonation, submits that he came to know about the impugned order only on 5.12.05. He submits that it was a neighbour of his who received the ‘tapal’ but did not intimate the same to him (petitioner). These averments have been reiterated today by the learned Counsel for the appellant. We have heard the learned SDR also, who strongly opposes the application for condonation of delay. The story of the appellant having received the impugned order from his neighbour only on 5.12.05 is inconsistent with, the categorical pleading of the appellant himself made in the opening sentence of the petition for condonation of delay, which reads:
The impugned order was received by the petitioner on 07.07.05
In the circumstances, the delay of 67 days involved in the filing of the appeal remains unexplained.
2. In the result, the application for condonation of delay gets dismissed. Consequently, the appeal itself gets dismissed along with the stay application.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)