Saving provision and delayed objection upheld the Tribunal's constitution, barring writ interference with the demolition appeal.

A saving provision in a later municipal enactment required pending or related contravention proceedings to follow the later procedural scheme, so the Building Tribunal was treated as properly constituted for the demolition appeal. Because the objection to its composition was not raised at the earliest stage and could have been cured before the Tribunal, the challenge to the Tribunal's constitution was untenable. The High Court should not have used writ jurisdiction to disturb that decision where the objection was delayed and lacked merit. The appeal succeeded, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Building Tribunal that heard the appeal against the demolition order was properly constituted under the governing municipal law and its saving provision; (ii) whether the High Court should have interfered in writ jurisdiction with the Tribunal's decision on the objection to its constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the Building Tribunal that heard the appeal against the demolition order was properly constituted under the governing municipal law and its saving provision.

Analysis: The saving provision in the later municipal enactment required proceedings relating to contraventions of the earlier Act to follow the procedure laid down in the later Act. The Tribunal therefore had to be judged by the procedural scheme preserved for such pending or related matters. The objection to composition was also not taken before the Tribunal at the earliest stage, and any defect, if present, could have been corrected then.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was properly constituted and the objection to its composition was untenable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should have interfered in writ jurisdiction with the Tribunal's decision on the objection to its constitution.

Analysis: The challenge was raised only after the appeal had been pursued before the Tribunal without objection. In these circumstances, the High Court ought not to have exercised its discretionary writ jurisdiction to upset the Tribunal's decision, particularly when the objection was capable of being cured at the hearing stage and the challenge lacked merit.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a saving provision requires pending or related proceedings to be governed by the later procedural scheme, a party who did not promptly object to the Tribunal's composition cannot successfully invoke writ jurisdiction to invalidate the proceedings on that ground.

---