SHAILENDRA NATHALAL THAKORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned judgment and order dated 26.7.2000 (Annexure-K) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short Tribunal) dismissing his O.A. No.17 of 1992 on the ground of delay and laches by rejecting Misc. Application No.549 of 1998 filed in it for condonation of delay in filing the O.A. No.17 of 1992 late.

(3.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it is clear that the application filed before the learned Tribunal was hopelessly time barred. Only ground which was stated in the application for condonation of delay was that another matter was filed before Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal and the applicant was awaiting for the outcome of it. This is no ground at all for condoning delay. That apart, for rejecting Misc. Application for condonation of delay, the learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons in its impugned order. If the learned Tribunal was not satisfied with the cause offered by the petitioner in approaching the learned Tribunal late, then there is no question of interference of this court in its limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner was filed both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, strictly speaking, it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the scope of which is very narrow and limited. Even, error of law cannot be corrected. In the instant case, neither there is an error of fact or law much less jurisdictional error. Therefore, there is no question of interference of this court.