1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3765 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3765 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3765 OF 2009 M/S. DELUX EXPORTS ... PETITIONER Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & Anr. ... RESPONDENTS Mr. Uday P.Warunjikar for the petitioner. Mr.Rohit B. Pardeshi for respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE: 9th April, 2009. DATE: 9th April, 2009. DATE: 9th April, 2009. P.C P.C P.C. 1. On behalf of respondent No.2, learned Counsel sought time. In our opinion, considering the controversy, the request for time is rejected as the respondent No.2 is already served. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. 3. The CESTAT by its order dated 14th July, 2007, remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to rehear the parties and dispose of the matter afresh on merits. It is the grievance of the petitioner that till date the matter has not been heard 2 and disposed of. 4. Considering the controversy, the following order :- If the matter has not already been decided, the Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the matter within 30 days from 13th April, 2009 after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner will appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 13th April, 2009 at 11.00 a.m., after which the Authority shall take steps according to law. 5. We make it clear that if the Adjudicating Authority fails to dispose of the matter within 30 days, the said Authority will be liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Liberty to the petitioner to apply to this Court in the event the matter is not decided within 30 days. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) 3 (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)