Limitation and service findings bar writ relief where the statutory appeal was time-barred and delay could not be condoned.

A writ petition cannot revive a challenge on merits where the statutory appeal was filed beyond limitation and there is no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period. Concurrent findings that the adjudication order was dispatched and that postal acknowledgment supported service were not displaced by the service objection. In the absence of a legally maintainable delayed appeal, the court will not reopen the dispute merely to permit substantive adjudication after expiry of limitation. The limitation objection was therefore sustained and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could succeed notwithstanding the dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred and the absence of power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period.

Analysis: The appeal before the appellate authority was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, and the authorities found no sufficient cause to treat the delayed filing as maintainable. The challenge to service of the adjudication order did not displace the concurrent factual findings that the order had been dispatched and that the postal acknowledgment supported service. In the absence of statutory power to condone delay beyond the prescribed limit, the writ court would not reopen the matter on merits merely because the petitioner sought substantive adjudication after expiry of limitation.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was upheld, and the writ petition failed.

---