Judgment: Heard on IA No.3243/2012, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 237 days. 2. On going through the reasons assigned for condonation of delay, we find that the delay has not at all been satisfactorily explained. Even deducting the period during which the review petition, which was filed and pending seeking review of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, there is huge unexplained delay. 3. In the circumstances, in the absence of any plausible explanation for condonation of delay, the application cannot be allowed. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. 4. However, we have also considered the other aspect of the matter, which has been brought to the notice by the respondent in reply to the application for condonation of delay. It has been stated by the respondent that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 17.11.2011 in Writ Petition No.3643/2011 deciding various writ petitions, as would be clear from para 12 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 5. However, out of the aforesaid cases, which have been decided by the common impugned order, the review petition and the writ appeal has been filed only in case of the present respondent. 6. The aforesaid fact has not been controverted by the appellant that the order in respect of other identically placed writ petitioners has attained finality, as the order passed in their cases have not been challenged by the Board. In view of the this reason also, we decline to interfere in the matter. 7. Even otherwise on merits also, the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in para 10 of the order dated 17.11.2011 passed in writ petition for allowing the writ petition cannot be said to be illegal. 8. Para 10 of the aforesaid order reads thus: - “10. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the MP Electricity Board dated 13.01.2010 is, accordingly, quashed. The respondent Board is directed to pass a fresh resolution based upon the report of the committee constituted by the Board by virtue of the order passed by this Court dated 24.11.2008. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the MP Electricity Board dated 13.01.2010 is, accordingly, quashed. The respondent Board is directed to pass a fresh resolution based upon the report of the committee constituted by the Board by virtue of the order passed by this Court dated 24.11.2008. It is needless to mention that the report of the committee shall not be turned down again on account of financial constraints and appropriate resolution shall be passed based upon the recommendations of the committee which was constituted by the Board in the matter. The aforesaid exercise of passing an appropriate order be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 9. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, on the ground of limitation, on account of the fact that against the impugned common order passed in various other writ petitions, the appellant had not filed any review or writ appeal and those orders have attained finality as also on merits, no case for interference is made out. 10. The writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.