IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.240 OF 2008 Ajay Gurdasmal Rohra ..Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.Vikram Nankani i/by Nankani & Associates for the petitioner. Mr.Y.R.Mishra with Mr.D.A.Dubey & 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 : 14.2.2008 PC 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. By an order dated 17.11.2004 the petitioner was directed to deposit 30% of the penalty imposed within a period of 60 days. On 28.12.2004 the petitioner applied for variation of the order on various grounds. It appears that application was not heard and decided. Thereafter on 19.10.2007 the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner failed to pre-deposit the penalty, has dismissed the appeal. It is this order which is subject matter of the present petition. 3. Ordinarily we do not interfere with such an order considering the fact that as there was non : 2 : compliance by the petitioner with the order of pre-deposit. However, in the instant case petitioner has already moved the application for variation of the order of pre-deposit. Once such an application was moved, it was for the Tribunal to dispose off the same according to law. The order dated 17.11.2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to dispose off the petitioner’s application dated 28.12.2004 according to law. 4. All contentions including whether Tribunal has jurisdiction are left open for consideration. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)