R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.

Counsel contends that despite the specific provision in the statute, which limits the period within which an appeal can be preferred and the further period allowed under the statute, the delay which has extended beyond that permissible period should be condoned, and that the Tribunal was in error in not condoning it.

2. Counsel relied upon a decision of the Bench of this Court in the case of Maheswari Fireworks Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer, wherein this Court observed that the limitation prescribed in the statute cannot be made applicable to this Court while exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The law of limitation is meant to be uniformly applied to all, and is not a thing to be circumvented by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court by way of challenge to an order of the Tribunal which has merely directed the litigant to look to the statutory provision to ascertain the extent of his right. It is a different matter, if the court, on examination of the merits of a matter properly brought before it, but without availing the appellate remedy, finds that the alternate remedy which should have been pursued by