IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.76 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.76 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.76 OF 2008 M/s.Sunitidevi Singhania Hospital ) Trust & Anr. )..Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Vikram Nankani with Mr.M.R.Baye for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr.Parag Vyas & Mr.H.P.Chaturvedi for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.REBELLO & Coram : F.I.REBELLO & Coram : F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ R.S.MOHITE,JJ R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 18.01.2008. PC 1. The original order was passed on 19.1.2006. Against that order an appeal was preferred by the petitioners herein before the Supreme Court. That was withdrawn as can be reflected in the order dated 18.4.2007. Only a statement was made before the Supreme Court that appropriate application shall be filed before the Tribunal. 2. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for rectification. The time for filing such application is six months. The Tribunal not being the civil Court and further there being no power conferred on the Tribunal to condone the delay beyond six months, the Tribunal rightly held that : 2 : there was no power to condone the delay. The petitioners now come before this Court to challenge that order. In our opinion, the Tribunal not being a Court has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed. It is therefore, not open to the High Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction to direct the Tribunal to hear the application for condonation of delay. If the Tribunal has no power this Court cannot direct condonation of delay. 3. Learned Counsel then states that he is also challenging the main order. The main order is the order in respect of which an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court. The petitioners cannot bye-pass the remedy available of preferring an appeal to the Supreme Court if available on questions of law by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Apart from that, appeal in the Supreme Court itself was withdrawn. 4. Considering the above, this is not a fit case to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition accordingly dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)