https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156728 Article 226 jurisdiction remained independent of Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: a statutory finality clause could not bar the High Court from examining illegality or breach of natural justice, and writ relief remained available to correct substantial injustice. In procedural matters, an ex parte direction under Order IX and Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as permission to proceed in a party's absence, not as a permanent bar to later participation; where a party later appears, the tribunal must exercise judicial discretion on the terms of participation, including evidence and cross-examination. The tribunal's order was set aside and remitted for reconsideration. en-us Tue, 22 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156728 Article 226 jurisdiction remained independent of Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: a statutory finality clause could not bar the High Court from examining illegality or breach of natural justice, and writ relief remained available to correct substantial injustice. In procedural matters, an ex parte direction under Order IX and Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as permission to proceed in a party's absence, not as a permanent bar to later participation; where a party later appears, the tribunal must exercise judicial discretion on the terms of participation, including evidence and cross-examination. The tribunal's order was set aside and remitted for reconsideration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156728