*1* kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.174/2010 Punjab State Sports Council. ..Petitioner -Versus- The Union of India and others. ..Respondents ........... Mr.Harsimran Singh Seoni a/w Mr.Nishant Sisidharan, Advocates i/b L.J.Law, for the Petitioner. Mr.P.S.Jetly a/w Mr.J.B.Mishra, for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED, JJ. Date : 11th March, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard. Perused the petition. 2 Rule, returnable for forthwith. 3 Mr.Jetly appearing for the Respondents waives service. He raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition and brought to our notice order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 18.02.2008 where-under the appeal filed by the Petitioner was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Court. 4 Mr.Jetly submits that the Petitioner instead of filing the appeal before this Court chose to file the present Writ Petition. He, thus, submits that the Petitioner should be relegated to the *2* alternate remedy under the Act. 5 Mr.Jetly is right in contending that alternate remedy by way of appeal is available and the Petitioner should be relegated to alternate remedy. 6 However, while hearing this petition on the preliminary issue, we were taken through the impugned order by the Advocates appearing for the parties. One of the serious criticism against the impugned order is that all contentions raised by the Petitioner are not considered by the Tribunal. 7 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also pointed out that the similar goods imported by the Sports Authority of India, were allowed clearance by the Customs Authority by extending the benefit of Notification No.17/2001/Cus dated 01.03.2001. According to him, conditions of the Notification No. 17/2001 are similar and corroborating to that of Notifications dated 12.04.1994, 13.07.1994 and 25.10.2002. He further pointed out that though there is reference to the clarification issued by the Government of India dated 25.10.2002 in the order of the Tribunal but there is no discussion as to why this clarification is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He, thus, submitted that the order of Tribunal is slip shot order without considering the submissions raised by the Petitioner and no reasons are assigned in *3* support of the view taken by the Tribunal. 8 On being asked, Mr.Jetly could not support approach adopted by the Tribunal. 9 Under these circumstances, looking to the consensus between the parties, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Tribunal for considering a fresh. 10 Since we are inclined to remit this matter back to the Tribunal for considering a fresh by quashing the impugned order, no useful purpose would be served by directing the Petitioner to withdraw this petition and file the appeal that too before this Court only. Looking to the consensus between the parties, without directing the Petitioner to exhaust alternate remedy, the impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. Appeal is restored to the file of Tribunal with direction to consider the same afresh by a reasoned order following principles of natural justice. All rival contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. We except that the Tribunal shall hear and decide the appeal within four months from the date of receipt of this order. 11 Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)