TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed in breach of principles of natural justice, we can only state that, if, this assertion is correct, it is an error pertaining to jurisdiction, which could have, perhaps, been corrected, if, appropriate timely steps had been taken by the appellant, which could include a remedy by way of a petition filed under under Article 226 of the Constitution - after more than six years have expired, the appellant cannot be permitted to challenge the order-in-original via the present proceedings - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - W.A. No. 276 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.P.Ayyamperumal For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst this dismissal, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Division Bench, as is indicated hereinabove. The Division Bench, we are told by Mr.Srinivas, Advocate, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 13.06.2016. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench, evidently, observed that the limitation prescribed under Section 85 of the Act could not be extended by the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3.4. Admittedly, the judgment of the Division Bench was not assailed by the appellant. 3.5. These aspects are not disputed by the counsel for the appellant. 4. The record shows that the appellant, at this juncture, chose to assail, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Single Judge via the impugned order cannot be faulted, even while we may have a different perception with regard to some of the reasons set out therein. 7.1. The fact remains that the appellant chose to take recourse to an appellate remedy against the order-in-original, albeit, after the prescribed period of limitation had expired. 7.2. The Division Bench, in the earlier round, vide its order dated 13.06.2016, passed in W.A.No.589 of 2016, had clearly indicated that limitation could not be extended by a Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant, as noticed above by us, did not assail the judgment of the Division Bench. 7.3. The appellant, in this round, seeks to challenge the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal may lack jurisdiction if it is improperly constituted, or if it fails to observe certain essential preliminaries to the inquiry. But it does not exceed its jurisdiction by basing its decision upon an incorrect determination of any question that it is empowered or required, (i.e., has jurisdiction) to determine. The strength of this theory of jurisdiction lies in its logical consistency. The characteristic attribute of a judicial act or decision is that it binds, whether it be right or wrong. An error of law or fact committed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body cannot, in general, be impeached otherwise than on appeal unless the erroneous determination relates to a matter on which the jurisdiction of that body depends. These principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner not having moved against that decision in an appropriate court by an appropriate proceeding. As long as that decision stands, the petitioner cannot complain of the. infringement of a fundamental right, for she has no such right . ........ (emphasis is ours) 7.5. In the light of the said principles, one has to see as to whether the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, which have been recorded in paragraph 5 above, can be considered by us, at this stage. 7.5. A perusal of the grounds, on which, the order of the learned Single Judge has been assailed would show that except for the first ground, which is adverted to in paragraph 5(i) above, all others are errors, if at all, are errors of law or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
