JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.20384/2023; but concedes that the singular issue impelled herein had not been raised, much less argued, before the learned Single Judge.

2. Sri.S.Anil Kumar – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that it had been omitted to be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the impugned orders, as far as his client’s case is concerned, had not been signed by the Authorities, either physically or digitally; and consequently that this contention had not been considered or answered in the judgment assailed. He argued that, nevertheless, his client is entitled to raise this aspect before this Court for the first time, since it is one edificed on the law alone.

3. We are taken aback by the submissions afore because, normally a judgment can be tested in Appeal, doubting the reasons and the ratiocination of the learned Judge, on grounds raised. One of the settled exceptions is when the issue is purely in the ambit of law. However, in the case at hand, the issue now sought to be projected is that the impugned orders were not signed by the Authorities. This is surely not