JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. – Notices on behalf opposite party nos. 1 to 5 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 3. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.5.2016, whereby the appeal filed under Clause 28 (3) of Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 has been dismissed by the opposite party no.1 having been filed with inordinate delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 9.10.2012. He had filed the appeal with some delay, however, the same was accompanied with an application under Section 5 Limitation Act along with affidavit explaining the delay. There were unavoidable circumstances under which the petitioner could not file the appeal in time as his father had fallen ill and subsequently died. The petitioner due to death of his father got disturbed and also fell ill and remained under treatment. After recovering from illness he had filed the appeal which was required to be decided on merit, however, the appellate authority without considering the merits of the case has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments: - "(1). Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (D) by Lrs.; [2015 (33) LCD 602). (2). M/s GMG Engineering Industries and others v. M/s Issa Green Power Solution and others; [2015 (33) LCD 1713]. (3). Ziledar Singh v. Prescribed Authority, Ceiling, Bahraich and others (Writ Petition No.5393 of 1981). (4). Pyare Lal v. Deputy Commissioner Food Lucknow Division & Ors.; Writ Petition No.2893 (MS) of 2012." 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner suffers from inordinate delay and latches as it was filed after four years. The limitation prescribed in this regard is 30 days. The explanation given by the petitioner for condonation of delay was not sufficient and the appellate authority has passed a reasoned and detailed order rejecting the appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. The limitation prescribed in this regard is 30 days. The explanation given by the petitioner for condonation of delay was not sufficient and the appellate authority has passed a reasoned and detailed order rejecting the appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. The order impugned clearly indicates that the limitation prescribed for filing of appeal under Clause 28 (4) of Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, is 30 days whereas the appeal was filed by the petitioner with delay of four years. The appellate authority has observed that the explanation given for condonation of delay is not at all satisfactory. It cannot be accepted that the petitioner could not get the copy of impugned order dated 9.10.2012 for such a long period. The explanation given in this regard cannot be accepted, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that due to unavoidable circumstances he was unable to file appeal within time as his father had fallen ill and died, he had also fell ill and remained under treatment, the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority has been placed on record, the perusal of the same indicates that no specific period has been given as to when the father of petitioner had fallen ill and for how long he had remained seriously ill, when he had died and when the petitioner had fallen ill and for how long he was so seriously ill that could not file appeal. It is only mentioned that in November, 2012 the father of petitioner had fallen ill and had died in 2013. The petitioner thereafter had also fallen ill and after recovering from illness had contacted the office of opposite party no.1 and thereafter after getting copy of impugned order had filed the appeal. 9. Needless to observe that the delay in filing of appeal was required to be explained on day to day basis and merely making vague assertions in this regard are not sufficient to condone the delay. There is nothing on record to indicate that the father of petitioner and the petitioner himself were hospitalized during the said period and due to the same he was not in a position to file appeal. There is nothing on record to indicate that the father of petitioner and the petitioner himself were hospitalized during the said period and due to the same he was not in a position to file appeal. The prescriptions annexed with the affidavit are merely prescriptions of medicines prescribed to the petitioner and that does not disclose that the petitioner was so seriously ill so could not file appeal in time. 10. I am of the considered view that in case the petitioner was serious in contesting the matter he should have been vigilant enough to have filed the appeal well in time. The delay of four years in filing appeal was sufficient to dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay. The judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions do not support the case of petitioner as the same relates to the legal proposition that lenient view should be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. There is no dispute to the aforesaid legal proposition, however, the delay cannot be condoned without considering the conduct of the petitioner. 11. In the present case, the conduct of the petitioner does not show that there were genuine reasons for delay and due to unavoidable circumstances the petitioner was not able to file the appeal. 12. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.