JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 757 of 2016, allowing the writ petition, whereby charge-sheet dated 14.08.2015 and subsequent termination order dated 03.03.2016 have been set aside. 3. The writ appeal was filed on 28.01.2022. 4. An application for condonation of delay, being I.A. No. 1 of 2022, is filed. It is pleaded in the said application that the term of members of the State Bar Council came to an end on 01.02.2020 and thereafter, as per Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961, tenure of the elected members were extended for a period of six months and thereafter, again for a further period of six months. Subsequently, a Special Committee was constituted on 02.02.2021 under Section 8-A of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is pleaded that because of Covid-19 pandemic, no steps could be taken. Reliance is placed on the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 in connection with extension of period of limitation. It is stated that excluding the period covered in terms of the orders passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, there is delay of 21 days in preferring the appeal. 5. In the reply filed by the respondent / writ petitioner, it is stated that material facts have been suppressed and that a decision was taken earlier by the duly elected Chairman of the State Bar Council on 24.01.2020, which was also approved by the Executive Committee, to comply with the direction of the learned Single Judge. However, delay is sought to be explained taking shelter of the Covid-19 pandemic and the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. It is also pleaded that the Special Committee had been constituted by the Bar Council of India to hold only election and further, that the Chairman of the Special Committee also happened to be the counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Judge. It is also pleaded that the Special Committee had been constituted by the Bar Council of India to hold only election and further, that the Chairman of the Special Committee also happened to be the counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Judge. It is further stated that the appeal has been filed only to harass the writ petitioner, who had lodged a complaint dated 02.12.2021 against the present Secretary of the State Bar Council and others with regard to certain audio clips and that it is the Secretary who had signed the Vakalatnama for the appellants, though he is not a party. 6. Mr. Tiwari submits that no decision was taken by the Bar Council not to prefer any appeal and therefore, there is no bar in preferring the appeal. He submits that though a number of grounds have been urged in the writ appeal, the only direction that is sought for by the appellants is to permit the appellants to conduct enquiry as the order of termination had been set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Mr. Singh submits that while it is correct that Covid-19 pandemic had intervened in the interregnum and period of limitation has been extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by passing various orders in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, present is not a case where because of Covid-19 pandemic, the appellants had not filed the appeal earlier. Present is a case where because of a conscious decision taken by the Executive Committee of the State Bar Council, which is the disciplinary authority, the respondent / writ petitioner was reinstated in service and back-wages have been paid in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge and the same signifies that preferring an appeal was far from contemplation. Change of guard will not facilitate filing of appeal, more so, in absence of any averment that the appellants had reviewed the earlier order of the Executive Committee. Rather, there is a deliberate suppression of material facts and therefore, the delay ought not to be condoned. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials of record. 9. Rather, there is a deliberate suppression of material facts and therefore, the delay ought not to be condoned. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials of record. 9. A perusal of the order dated 24.01.2020 goes to show that based on a legal opinion, the Chairman had taken a call to ensure compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge and the note of the Secretary also goes to show that the members of the Executive Committee had also endorsed for compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, had noted that the suspension order, the charge-sheet and the termination order did not have the approval of the Executive Committee, which is the disciplinary authority, and all orders had been unilaterally passed by the Chairman of the State Bar Council. 11. In the application for condonation of delay, there is no whisper that a decision was earlier taken to ensure compliance of the order of this Court, which signifies that there was no intention of preferring an appeal. It is to be noted that the elected body had continued for more than a year after the decision dated 24.01.2020 was taken. Even otherwise, charge-sheet having been quashed, the submission advanced by Mr. Tiwari that disciplinary proceedings be allowed to continue as the order of termination was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. 12. In view of the above, notwithstanding the fact that the delay is said to be of 21 days (excluding the period of limitation due to order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020), we are of the opinion that delay ought not to be condoned as the appellants have not made true and correct disclosures of relevant factual matrix in the application for condonation of delay. 13. In that view of the matter, I.A. No. 1 of 2020 is dismissed. 14. In view of the above, writ appeal also stands dismissed.