- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.692 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1528 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1531 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.693 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s appearances, Court’s orders order or directions ----------------------------------------------------- ¦ Mr.M.V.Jaykar with Mr.S. Jaydev ¦ and Ms.Uma Vyavaharkar i/b ¦ M/s.Khaitan and Jaykar for the ¦ Petitioners. ¦ CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ¦ J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. ¦ DATED: 24TH JULY, 2008 P.C.: There is no dispute that the appeal was filed beyond the period of 90 days. Therefore, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to condone the delay. The learned Counsel, then, submitted that we should consider these petition as the petitions against the original order. In our opinion, it will not be - 2 - appropriate to entertain these petitions as petitions against the original order. The Parliament has provided remedy of an appeal against the original order and has provided for period of limitation for filing that appeal. The Parliament has also provided that delay beyond a certain period cannot be condoned by the tribunal/Appellate authority. The Petitioners have allowed that remedy of appeal to be barred, therefore, now to entertain these petitions as petitions against the original order would amount to permitting the Petitioners to frustrate the scheme of the Legislation. The scheme of the statute is that a challenge to the original order is to be raised by an appeal which is to be filed within a particular period. The extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under the Constitution cannot be permitted to be used by the Petitioners, who have allowed their ordinary remedy to be barred. Petitions are, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) - 3 - (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)