TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed restrictions recognized are that the delay should otherwise be satisfactorily explained and that the litigant would suffer gross injustice if the remedy is completely shut out. In the present case, the adjudicating authority passed the order on 08.03.2016 which would have been received by the petitioner shortly thereafter. For over one and half years, no steps were taken by the petitioner to challenge it. The present petition came to be filed on or around 11.09.2017. The delay is gross. Against the maximum period of limitation of three months, even considering additional one month upto which the Commissioner can condone the delay, the present petitioner moved its first challenge almost a year and a half later. No grounds are indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s period of additional one month, Commissioner would have no power to condone the delay. 2. The order being challenged in the present petition is thus appealable and the statute has provided a forum of appeal. Such appeal can be presented within the time prescribed which can be extended on sufficient cause being shown by the appellate authority upto one month and no more. It is well settled by series of decisions of Supreme Court as well as this Court that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot extend the period of limitation beyond the period for which the appellate authorities are empowered to condone the delay. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would have submit that the request of the petitioner is to entertain this petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iso nor the appeal can be filed beyond the period of 90 days. 2. The second question is answered in negative to the extent that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. On the third question, the answer is in affirmative, but with the clarification that- A. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be preferred for challenging the order passed by the original adjudicating authority in following circumstances that A. 1) The authority has passed the order without jurisdiction and by assuming jurisdiction which there exist none, or A.2) Has exercised the power in excess of the jurisdiction and by overstepping or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
