Hriday Nath Roy vs Ram Chandra Barna Sarma, (ILR 48 Calcutta 138); Collector of Customs vs A.H.A. Rahima, AIR 1957 Madras 496; The State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Noon, ; ; Kumaran vs Kothan daraman, AIR 1963 Gujarat Page 6; Toronto Railway vs Toronto Corporation, [1904] Appeal Cases 809 and Barnard vs National Dock Labour Board, ; Refuting the contentions of Mr. Kacker, Mr. Lalit argued that in several later judgments the view taken in Mohammad Noon 's case (supra) has been explained as being confined to the peculiar facts of that case and that the rule of merger has not undergone any change and the consistent view that has been taken is that even an order passed by a Tribunal or Court without jurisdiction can be challenged before the Appellate Authority or Court, that in such an appeal the question of the initial Court 's jurisdiction can also be gone into and that once the Appellate Authority or Court found jurisdic tional competence in the Tribunal or Court of first instance and confirmed the order in appeal, then the rule of merger of the order of the original authority with the order of the Appellate Authority would be clearly attracted and thence forth the order of the original authority cannot be assailed on the ground of jurisdictional error or incompetence.