JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. In all these cases, there is delay of 1519 days in filing the revision. We take the averments in the affidavit supporting the application for condonation of delay in C.T.R. No. 71 of 2017 and treat it as the leading case. 2. Initially, an affidavit was filed in support of the application for condonation of delay of 1519 days. Therein, it is stated as follows: “2. That a copy of the impugned judgment passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 06.02.2013 was served upon the revisionist on 04.03.2013 and as per the law the limitation for filing the present appeal was upto 03.06.2013. 3. That after receiving the said order by the Commissioner Commercial Tax, he called the report from the Deputy Commissioner and State Representative Commercial Tax, Dehradun, which took substantial time. 4. That thereafter the Deputy Commissioner and State Representative of Uttarakhand Commercial Tax sent the report and opinion for filing the revision before the High Court of Uttarakhand. 5. That after receiving the same on 07.08.2013 the Commissioner, Commercial Tax sent the matter to the Secretary, Finance, State of Uttarakhand for filing the present revision alongwith the other relevant documents of the case, who in turn granted approval/permission to approach before the Hon’ble High Court by way of filing Commercial Tax Revision on 9th September, 2013. 6. That after getting approval for filing the revision all the papers with regard to filing present revision has been sent by the department to Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax High Court.” 3. Thereafter, it is stated that, after receiving the said paper, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax High Court approached the office of the Chief Standing Counsel and the Chief Standing Counsel allotted the file for preparing the Commercial Tax Revision to the present Advocate and as soon as the present counsel received the paper, he immediately prepared the Commercial Tax Revision and handed over to the office for necessary verification and filing. It is further stated that since all the documents relied upon by the Department were in Hindi, it was directed that the copies, on which the Department relies upon, should be accompanied by their English Translation. As there is no authorized translator in the Department as well as in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took sometime to translate the documents. Thereafter, a Supplementary Affidavit has been filed. As there is no authorized translator in the Department as well as in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took sometime to translate the documents. Thereafter, a Supplementary Affidavit has been filed. Therein, after referring to the sanction/permission dated 03.09.2013 by the Law Department for preferring the Revision, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: “7. That after getting the necessary permission from the Government, the department instructed the concerned official to contact the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, however, the then concerned officer Shri Rajneesh Yashwasthi took no steps for allotment of file for preparation and filing of CTR, as such the same could not be filed inspite of necessary and mandatory sanction from the Government for preferring CTR. 8. That thereafter in September, 2016 the deponent joined as Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, High Court Works, Nainital then it transpired that till date CTR has not been preferred. As such the deponent immediately on 08.11.2016 contacted the office of Chief Standing Counsel for preparation and filing of the CTR and the case file was allotted to the State Counsel. 9. That it is relevant to state here that for the dereliction of duty on the part of the predecessor of the deponent the Government after conducting an inquiry has issued charge sheet to the concerned official on 26.7.2017. A copy of the charge sheet dated 26.7.2017 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit. 10. That since all the documents relied upon were in Hindi, it was directed such documents in Hindi language upon which the department relies upon, should also be accompanied by their English translation. Since there was no authorized translator in the department as well as in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took some time to translate the documents and the translated documents were received by the department in February, 2017.” 4. In paragraph no. 11, it is stated that as there was inordinate delay in preferring the Commercial Tax Revision, the State Counsel sought proper explanation, which was provided by Annexure No. 3 Letter. 5. We heard Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel and also Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/revisionist. 6. There is delay of more than 4 years in filing these revisions. 5. We heard Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel and also Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/revisionist. 6. There is delay of more than 4 years in filing these revisions. Essentially, what is stated is that though the Government gave the sanction, the action was not properly taken. Going by the averments at paragraph no. 8 of the Supplementary Affidavit, it is stated that the deponent joined as Deputy Commissioner in September, 2016 and, immediately, on 08.11.2016, contacted the Chief Standing Counsel for preparation of C.T.R. and the case was allotted to the State Counsel. It is, thereafter, that there is reference to the charge sheet, which was issued on 26.07.2017. Still, we notice that the Revisions were filed only on 31.07.2017 and there is further delay of about 8 months. Apart from referring to production of the documents being in Hindi and absence of a translator, we see no explanation, which can be treated as being sufficient. 7. We notice that we have already rejected the application for condonation of delay, where the delay was of 1414 days in C.T.R. No. 54 of 2017, delay of 1415 days in C.T.R. No. 55 of 2017 and delay of 1931 days in C.T.R. No. 35 of 2017. 8. In such circumstances, we see no reason to condone the delay of 1519 days in filing the Revisions. The applications for condonation of delay in all these cases will stand dismissed. Consequently, the Commercial Tax Revisions will also stand dismissed.