1. Having heard both learned Senior Counsel Shri Joshi and Mehta in the two Writ Petitions, for the Petitioners and with their able assistance having perused the Petitions and all their Annexures, including the impugned orders, the relevant statutory provisions, we are of the view that at this stage it is not necessary to interfere in our extra ordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The order under challenge is on an interlocutory application. That application was preferred by the Petitioners raising the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the locus of the Appellant/party before the Tribunal. In one of the matters, the issue of limitation was also raised.
3. We are of the view that merely because the findings on these three applications, which are interlocutory, are adverse to the Petitioners they cannot and all the more we cannot presume that the final adjudication would be adverse to the Petitioners necessarily. In the event the final orders in the main application are adverse to the Petitioners, then, while challenging them, the Petitioners can raise all contentions including that the original proceedings were not maintainable, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction, the Appellant/Applicant was not a person aggrieved and alternatively and without prejudice the application was barred by limitation and should have been dismissed on that ground. All such issues can be raised irrespective of the present order and any findings therein. Therefore, keeping the challenge open, and for being raised at an appropriate stage, we dispose off these Writ Petitions. We clarify that each of the observations in the impugned order are tentative and prima facie which shall not influence the Tribunal while deciding the main application on merits.