Writ jurisdiction and patent lack of jurisdiction: late objection to statutory competence was rejected in discretionary review.

A writ court will ordinarily decline interference where a party challenges jurisdiction for the first time after inviting a statutory authority's decision without objecting before that authority or the tribunal. The distinction between patent and latent lack of jurisdiction was considered, but the relevant provisions did not make the absence of jurisdiction obvious on the face of the statute; in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the failure to raise the point earlier, discretionary relief under Article 226 was refused and the jurisdictional challenge rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with the awards and appellate order on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the Registrar when the jurisdictional objection had not been raised before the Registrar or the Tribunal, and whether the alleged lack of jurisdiction was patent.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, and a party that invited the decision of the statutory authority without objecting to its competence ordinarily cannot later challenge jurisdiction for the first time in writ proceedings. The distinction between patent and latent lack of jurisdiction was considered, but the words of Section 69 and the definition of "dispute" in Section 2(i) did not make the absence of jurisdiction obvious on the face of the provision. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation for not raising the objection earlier, and having regard to the consistent practice of declining discretionary relief where the point was not taken before the authority, interference was not warranted.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.

---