Statutory limitation cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction where the law bars condonation of delay.

The limitation period under the taxing statute was treated as binding on all dealers and could not be bypassed through Article 226 simply because the statutory appeal was filed late. The Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously and cannot override a clear statutory bar on condonation of delay. Reasons such as illness of the person in charge and the shortness of the delay were held insufficient to displace the statutory limitation scheme. The Court also accepted that a special law may exclude the Limitation Act where the statutory scheme so indicates, and substantial justice could not justify rewriting the statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay beyond the statutory limitation period for filing the appeal could be condoned by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The limitation prescribed by the taxing statute was held to bind all dealers uniformly and could not be bypassed through writ jurisdiction merely because the statutory appeal was not filed in time. The Court held that Article 226 is to be exercised cautiously and cannot be used to override a clear statutory bar on condonation of delay. The reasons offered for the delay, including illness of the person in charge and the shortness of the delay, were found insufficient to displace the statutory limitation scheme. Reliance on the principle of substantial justice did not justify rewriting the statute, and the Court accepted the broader principle that a special law may exclude the application of the Limitation Act where the statutory scheme so indicates.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the writ challenge failed.

---