Writ jurisdiction may revive a time-barred dispute where delay is explained and merits need fresh examination.

A limitation bar on a statutory appeal does not necessarily prevent writ intervention under Article 226 where the delay is sufficiently explained and refusal to examine the merits would cause gross injustice. The Gujarat HC noted that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may scrutinise the correctness of the underlying adjudication even after dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. On the facts, the delay was treated as adequately explained and the matter was considered fit for examination by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order was set aside and the proceedings restored for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether, despite dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred, the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction and remit the matter for fresh consideration on the ground that the delay was sufficiently explained and non-consideration of the merits would cause gross injustice.

Analysis: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had been rejected as beyond the maximum condonable period, but the Court held that such a limitation bar does not, in an appropriate case, prevent the High Court from examining the correctness of the order-in-original under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court applied the principle that writ intervention may be justified where extraordinary circumstances explain the delay and where failure to consider the merits would result in gross injustice. On the facts, the delay was found to be sufficiently explained and the issue appeared prima facie to require examination by the adjudicating authority, with the petitioner's assistance.

Conclusion: The Court directed that the impugned order be set aside and the proceedings be restored to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.

---