WA 373/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge directing r einstatement of the respondent-writ petitioner with consequential benefits. The writ petitioner was appointed in the service of the appellant in the year 19 87. Prior to that he had served in Vijaya Bank since 1981 to 1987. He continued to serve the appellant till 14.7.2006 when he was removed from service on the al legation that he had not disclosed that he served the Vijaya Bank prior to joini ng the appellant. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court and learned Single Judge find ing that the order was illegal directed reinstatement with consequential benefit s. The main finding which has been recorded by the learned Single Judge is that the action of the disciplinary authority was arbitrary and malafide. The writ pe titioner was not guilty of furnishing any false information. We have heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. P. K. Ti wari, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on 01.12.2008 the Central G overnment issued a notification making the provisions of Administrative Tribunal s Act, 1985, applicable to the appellant. Once the Act became applicable to the appellant, the jurisdiction of this Court stood excluded and pending writ petiti on was liable to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal under Sec tion 29 of the Act. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner apart from submitting that in absence of stay being granted by the Division Bench, the appellant was in contempt for not complying with the impugned order and may not be heard by this Court in view of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Panjwani’s case report ed in AIR 2003 SC 2177, further submitted that the appellant did not raise any o bjection as to jurisdiction before learned Single Judge, nor the notification da ted 01.12.2008 was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The appell ant thus contested the writ petition on merit and having failed on merits, may n ot be allowed to raise the point of jurisdiction, for the first time, in appeal. Alternatively, the appellant may be burdened with heavy costs, having wasted th e time of the Court as well as subjecting the respondent to undue harassment and loss. We are of the view that while there is discretion with the Court to deny hearing to a party, who may disobey the order under appeal, in spite of there being no stay as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Panjwani (supra) and the Court can, in appropriate cases, decline to allow a plea to be raised, for the first time in appeal when such a plea was not raised at a lower forum, in the interest of justice, we allow the appellant to raise the plea of jurisdiction but subjec t to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as costs. In view of notification dated 01.12.2008 the impugned order of learned Single Ju dge will stand set aside and the writ petition will stand remitted to the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on December 2 0, 2011. The Tribunal will hear the appellant only if order of costs is complied with. If the said order is not complied with, the appellant may not be given hearing by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may decide the writ petition of the respondent, as fa r as possible, within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The appeal is disposed of. The connected contempt proceedings being Contempt Case(C) No.298 of 2009 will al so stand disposed of in view of the above order.