1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.47 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3169 OF 2004 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.48 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1110 OF 2004 Aircargo Agents Association of India .. Petitioners. Versus Union of India & Others .. Respondents. Mr.Jimmy Pochkhanwala with Mr.Aditya Chitale for the petitioners. Mr.A.S. Rao with Mr.Y.S. Bhate & Mr.Y.R. Mishra i/by M.H. Patil for the respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 27th February, 2008 DATED : 27th February, 2008 DATED : 27th February, 2008 P.C. : 1. Review Petition (L) No.47 of 2007 has filed in Civil Writ Petition No.3169 of 2004 while Review Petition (L) No.48 of 2007 has been filed in Civil Writ Petition No.1110 of 2004. It is not necessary for us to go into the factual matrix of the matter. Suffice it to note that the Division Bench of this Court passed both the orders in the respective writ petitions, while directing the parties to approach the Director General of Service Tax and give hearing to the petitioner before passing the order. By consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, no legal issues were raised or argued in those writ petitions. 2 2. Now, in the review petition, the learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly conceded before us that the Director General of Service Tax has no inherent jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of the Lower Authorities and pass appropriate orders. Once lack of inherent jurisdiction is admitted, directions issued by this Court in both the writ petitions vide order dated 12-7-2004 and 12-4-2005 would have to be recalled. 3. As far as restoration of Writ Petition No.3169 of 2004 is concerned, it is not necessary for this Court to recall the order, as it merely orders grant of hearing to the petitioner in that petition. Since the matter cannot be argued before that authority, the order is redundant, ineffective and, therefore, is recalled and that writ petition would stand dismissed. As far as Writ Petition No.1110 of 2004 is concerned, for the reasons aforestated, we recall the order dated 12-7-2004 and direct that the said writ petition be listed for hearing on merits. 4. With these observations, both the review petitions are accordingly disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CHIEF JUSTICE 3 J.P. DEVADHAR, J.