Writ jurisdiction and ex parte procedure: statutory finality cannot bar judicial review, and later participation requires discretion.

Article 226 jurisdiction remained independent of Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: a statutory finality clause could not bar the High Court from examining illegality or breach of natural justice, and writ relief remained available to correct substantial injustice. In procedural matters, an ex parte direction under Order IX and Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as permission to proceed in a party's absence, not as a permanent bar to later participation; where a party later appears, the tribunal must exercise judicial discretion on the terms of participation, including evidence and cross-examination. The tribunal's order was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was curtailed by Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (ii) Whether a party, who had appeared at an earlier stage but was proceeded against ex parte on an adjourned hearing, could later be allowed to appear through counsel and participate from the stage then reached, subject to judicial discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was curtailed by Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 was held to be independent of legislative enactment. Section 105, which declared tribunal orders final and conclusive, could not take away the power to examine whether a tribunal had acted illegally or in breach of natural justice. The finality clause could not convert an illegal act into a legal one, and writ jurisdiction remained available to correct illegality and substantial injustice.

Conclusion: Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 did not curtail the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether a party, who had appeared at an earlier stage but was proceeded against ex parte on an adjourned hearing, could later be allowed to appear through counsel and participate from the stage then reached, subject to judicial discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The procedural scheme of the Code was treated as a framework for advancing justice rather than penalising default. Order IX and Order XVII were construed in the light of natural justice. An ex parte proceeding was understood as permission to proceed in the absence of a party, not as an immutable order barring later participation. Where a party appears at an adjourned hearing, the court must exercise discretion and determine what terms are just, including whether cross-examination or evidence should be permitted in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to appear through counsel at the adjourned hearing, and the tribunal was bound to exercise its discretion on the extent of participation instead of treating the ex parte stage as conclusive against him.

Final Conclusion: The tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law and the principles indicated, with the tribunal to decide afresh the extent of participation and evidence, if any, to be permitted.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional writ jurisdiction cannot be excluded by a statutory finality clause, and procedural rules governing ex parte proceedings must be applied with a judicial discretion informed by natural justice, so that a party who later appears is not automatically shut out from all participation.

---