JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 162 days in preferring the connected writ appeal against the common judgment and order dated 10.9.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.932/2017, W.P.(C) No. 2992/2017 and W.P.(C) No.3048/2017. 3. The matters arise out of Electricity Act, 2003. 4. In W.P.(C) No.932/2017, the final assessment order dated 4.2.2017 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsidering the objection raised by the writ petitioner. In W.P.(C) No.2992/2017, similar order was passed setting aside the final assessment order dated 6.5.2017. In W.P.(C) No.3048/2017, liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to file objection before the Assessing Officer to the provisional assessment order dated 24.4.2017 with a further direction to the Assessing Officer to pass an appropriate order on the objection to be filed bearing in mind the discussions made in the judgment. 5. The Assessing Officer, after considering the objection, passed the order on 2.7.2019 while the application for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal was pending. 6. It is relevant to note that except in W.P.(C) No.932/2017, no appeal has been preferred in respect of other writ petitions. 7. In W.P.(C) No.2992/2017, following the order of this Court dated 10.9.2018, an order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.1.2019 which is now challenged in W.P. (C) No.828/2019. In respect of W.P.(C) No.932/2017, following the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 10.9.2018, after hearing the objection, fresh assessment order that was passed on 2.7.2019 is challenged in W.P.(C) No.4776/2019. Similarly, assessment order was passed pursuant to the direction contained in W.P.(C) No.3048/2017 and that has also been subjected to challenge in W.P.(C) No.4819/2019. 8. A perusal of the averments made in this application would go to show that there is no explanation from 10.9.2018 to 8.2.2019. 8.2.2019 is a letter by which the Standing Counsel had given an opinion to file writ appeal against the order dated 10.9.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.932/2017. The aforesaid opinion was rendered after this Court passed an order on 8.2.2019 staying the fresh assessment order dated 30.1.2019 passed pursuant to the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.2992/2017. 8.2.2019 is a letter by which the Standing Counsel had given an opinion to file writ appeal against the order dated 10.9.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.932/2017. The aforesaid opinion was rendered after this Court passed an order on 8.2.2019 staying the fresh assessment order dated 30.1.2019 passed pursuant to the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.2992/2017. Though the authorities had suggested to file appeal in W.P.(C) No.2992/2017, which is evident from the letter dated 18.2.2019 (Annexure-3 to the affidavit in the interlocutory application), the appeal is preferred in W.P. (C) No.932/2017. There is no attempt to offer any explanation by the applicant to explain the delay for the period from 10.9.2018 to 8.2.2019. 9. The present writ appeal along with the interlocutory application for condonation of delay was filed on 26.3.2019. 10. There being no explanation whatsoever for the period from 10.9.2018 to 8.2.2019, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for condoning the delay, more so, when pursuant to the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.9.2018, consequential order has been passed by the Assessing Officer, which is now put to challenge in W.P.(C) No.4776/2017. 11. Accordingly, the interlocutory application is dismissed.