JUDGMENT : M.DURAISWAMY, J. (Prayer: CMP No.27550/2019 Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 834 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 01.08.2017 made in W.P.No.1618 of 2013. CMP No.27552/2019 Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 833 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 01.08.2017 made in W.P.No.1619 of 2013.) 1. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.27550 of 2019 is filed to condone the delay of 834 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 01.08.2017 made in W.P.No.1618 of 2013. 2. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 27552 of 2019 is filed to condone the delay of 833 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 01.08.2017 made in W.P.No.1619 of 2013. 3. For condoning the inordinate delay of 833 days and 834 days respectively, the District Educational Officer, in paragraph No.4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the above petitions has stated as follows: “... It is submitted that orders have been passed in the W.P. Nos.1618 of 2013 1619 of 2013 respectively dated 01.08.2017 and the copy of the Judgment were received in the office of the District Educational Officer, Tiruvarur on 22.11.2018. It is submitted that Appellants/Respondents was engaged in inspection of schools during the month of December and January 2019. during the month of March and April 2019, paper valuation work were supervised. It is submitted that during the month of May 2019, the District Educational Officer has attended the final valuation and result publication work. During the month of June 2019, instant Examination was supervised. Hence, instructions were issued to the Block Educational Officer to take follow up action..” 4. On a perusal of the averments stated in para 4, it could be seen that the Writ Petitions were disposed of by Common Order dated 01.08.2017 and the copy of the order was received in the office of the District Educational Officer, Tiruvarur on 22.11.2018. On a perusal of the copy of the order filed along with the Writ Appeals, it could be seen that the appellants have not even applied for a copy of the order passed in the Writ Petitions. The Writ Appeals have been filed by producing the copy of the order sent to the respondents by the Registry. On a perusal of the copy of the order filed along with the Writ Appeals, it could be seen that the appellants have not even applied for a copy of the order passed in the Writ Petitions. The Writ Appeals have been filed by producing the copy of the order sent to the respondents by the Registry. Further, in para 4 of the affidavit, the District Educational Officer has stated that he was engaged in inspection of schools during the month of December and January 2019 and during the month of March and April 2019 engaged in paper valuation work. Further, he has stated that during the month of May 2019, he attended the final valuation and result publication work. Further, the District Educational Officer has stated that during the month of June 2019, he supervised the Examination, thereafter he had given instructions to the Block Educational Officer to take follow up action. 5. From the reading of the averments stated in para 4, it is clear that the District Educational Officer has attended all other works except the filing of the Writ Appeals in time. The reasoning given by the Appellants for condoning the inordinate delay of 833 days & 834 days respectively cannot be accepted. 6. In the judgment reported in 2015 (1) SCC 680 [H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Limited and another], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the party seeking for condonation of delay should give acceptable reason. In the absence of acceptable reason given by a party seeking for condonation of the delay, the delay cannot be condoned. 7. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in the said judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. In the case on hand, the petitioners have not explained the reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 833 days and 834 days respectively in a proper manner. In the absence of any acceptable reason given by the petitioners, the delay cannot be condoned. 9. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 833 days and 834 days respectively. The petitioners are dismissed. Consequently, W.A.SR.Nos.157044 & 157012 of 2019 are rejected.