Article 226 review is limited to jurisdictional defects; Tribunal delay condonation stands where power exists and no jurisdictional error is shown.

The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to correcting a Tribunal's mere error in condoning delay where the Tribunal had jurisdiction to do so. Interference is confined to jurisdictional defects, not errors of law or fact in the exercise of that power. The approach to condonation of delay is to be liberal and broad rather than pedantic. On that basis, the High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order condoning delay in the revision application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Tribunal's order condoning delay in filing the revision application.

Analysis: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to condone delay, and any alleged error in the manner of exercising that power did not amount to a jurisdictional error warranting certiorari. Interference under Article 226 is confined to jurisdictional defects and does not extend to correcting mere errors of law or fact. The approach to condonation of delay is to be liberal and broad, not pedantic.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order condoning delay.

---