High Court quashed Tribunal orders of 12-07-2006 and 28-09-2006 for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal was not entitled to revisit the pre-deposit question after dispensing with it. Court directed disposal of appeal on merits.
Directing the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
WRIT PETITION NO.7440 OF 2006
Matunga Book Depot & Another .. Petitioners.
Versus
Special Director & Others .. Respondents.
Mr.S.P. Kanuga i/by Ms.Sapna N. Nath for the
petitioners.
Mr.P.S. Jetly for the respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
D.B. BHOSALE, JJ.
DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2007.
P.C. :
1. Rule. Heard forthwith.
2. The facts need not be set out. On
13-08-2001 in Appeal Nos.228/01 and 229/01 on an
application moved by the petitioner herein, the
learned Tribunal was pleased to dispense with the
requirement of pre-deposit and ordered that the
appeal be heard on merits. Accordingly, the learned
counsel submits that the matter was heard. It
appears that no orders were passed.
3. On 12-7-2006 in Appeal No.228/01 further
order came to be passed observing that at that stage
the Tribunal was considering the question of
2
dispensation of making pre-deposit of the penalty
amount. The petitioner, thereafter moved an
application to point out that an order had already
been passed of dispensing with pre-deposit. The
learned Tribunal on 28-09-2006 in Appeal No.228/01
despite the fact that this fact was brought to their
attention again observed that the question of
pre-deposit would be taken up afresh. It is these
orders which are subject matter of present petition.
4. Once the Tribunal applied its mind and
passed an order dispensing with the pre-deposit,
question of recalling the order suo-motto would not
arise unless it was the respondents, if entitled to
in law, who could have moved against the said order,
which is not the case. In that light, in our
opinion, the Tribunal without recalling its earlier
order was not entitled to proceed again to hear the
question of pre-deposit. The order is without
jurisdiction and consequently the order dated
12-7-06 and 28-9-2006 are liable to be quashed and
set aside.
5. Considering the above, we direct the
Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits.
Petition is accordingly made absolute in terms of
this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
3
(D.B. BHOSALE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quasi-judicial Tribunal had jurisdiction to reconsider the dispensation of pre-deposit after having originally dispensed with it in the same matter.
Whether an appellate order dispensing with pre-deposit is liable to be quashed when the authority proceeds to hear the question afresh without recalling its earlier order.
Matunga Book Depot & Another
Special Director & Others
F.I. Rebello
D.B. Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court