Belated writ challenge to rectification orders fails where jurisdictional defect is not patent and delay is unexplained.

A belated writ challenge to income-tax rectification orders will not be entertained merely because the orders are said to be jurisdiction; gross unexplained delay and laches can defeat certiorari or prohibition unless the absence of jurisdiction is patent and immediately apparent. The note states that filing long after the impugned orders, without any explanation for delay, was insufficient to invoke writ relief. On the stated facts, the alleged jurisdictional defect was not so clear as to justify ignoring the delay, so the petition was liable to be dismissed and the delay not condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition challenging rectification orders under the income-tax law could be entertained despite gross delay on the ground that the orders were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition was filed long after the impugned orders were made, and no explanation for the delay was given in the petition. The Court held that mere assertion of lack of jurisdiction did not automatically excuse delay. Relief in writ jurisdiction may be declined where the challenge is belated, unless the case shows a patent absence of jurisdiction that is immediately apparent. On the facts, the alleged jurisdictional defect was not so clear as to justify ignoring the delay, and the attempts at rectification did not satisfactorily account for the lapse of time.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ proceedings, a belated challenge to an order will not be entertained merely by alleging want of jurisdiction; unless the absence of jurisdiction is patent and clearly established, gross unexplained delay and laches can defeat the claim for certiorari or prohibition.

---