This writ petition is directed against order dated 25.7.2001 passed by State Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1987 dismissing the petitioners application for condonation of delay for filing appeal against an order of Divisional forum under the Act and consequently dismissed the appeal. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed a consumer complaint before Divisional forum at Srinagar regarding a BPL CTV set purchased by him from the opposite party writ petitioner. On contest the Divisional forum allowed the complaint by ordering the opposite party to provide alternate to the consumer respondent No. 2 with compensation of Rs. 5000/-. This order was passed on 1.7.2000. 3. Against this order the aggrieved party writ petitioner did not file appeal within prescribed period of time and instead the appeal was filed 56 days beyond the prescribed time period provided for such appeal. Alongside petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay the appellate forum of State Commission considered the matter and found that no cause is made out to condone the delay. The explanation put-forth did not satisfy the commission so the application as also the appeal was dismissed. 4. Sections 13 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987 provides:- "Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Divisional Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such forum and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period." 5. Ordinarily appeal against Divisional forum is to be filed before State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. The State Commission in its discretion is allowed to entertain the appeal after 30 days if the commission appellate forum is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said 30 days period. 6. On going through the record including the impugned order it is seen that the Commission has recorded reasons for not being satisfied of the cause and explanation for delay. 6. On going through the record including the impugned order it is seen that the Commission has recorded reasons for not being satisfied of the cause and explanation for delay. The appellate forum has also found that the plea taken by the counsel at the time of arguments is not born out by contents of the application for condonation of delay and the award under appeal was announced in presence of the parties. The plea of applicant that he left the station for some time hence the reason for not filing the appeal within time is not believed by the Commission for reasons recorded thereto. The Commission in terms has come to the conclusion that the applicant has not taken due care and caution to file the appeal within time as he had the opportunity and occasion to do so. The Commission is not satisfied about the sufficiency of cause for not filing the appeal within the time. 7. The court is not sitting in appeal against the order of the State Commission appellate forum. The appellate forum has the powers and jurisdiction to decide the matter one way or the other. If the Commission has on consideration of the matter after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of record come to a definite conclusion that the satisfaction of the Commission as to sufficiency of cause for not filing appeal within time does not arise from record, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot step-in to correct a decisional error when having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances no injustice is caused or miscourage of justice or violation of any law or rules is made out. The impugned order is passed in exercise of discretion vested by the statute in the forum within the para-meters of law. 8. In the above view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed at this pre-admission hearing stage. Send back the record alongwith copy of this order.