State Of M.P. And Anr vs Pradeep Kumar And Anr on 12 September, 2000
10. It can thus be seen that the aforesaid provisions do not prescribe for rejection of memorandum of appeal in the case where the appeal is not accompanied by the application for condoning the delay. On the contrary, it can be seen from the Sub-section (3) of Section 9 that the power is given to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal may entertain an appeal made to it after the expiry of period of thirty or sixty days, as the case may be, if it is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. It can thus be seen that a formal application for condonation of delay is also not necessary. The learned School Tribunal, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period may condone the delay and entertain the appeal. I, therefore, see no reason as to why the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of M. P. and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. (cited supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.