Penalty under Rule 96ZO(5) remanded pending High Court ruling on the rule's validity.

Where the vires of Rule 96ZO(5) was under challenge before the High Court, the penalty order could not be conclusively sustained on merits. The appropriate course was to set aside the impugned penalty order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after the High Court decides the validity of the rule. The penalty issue therefore remained open pending the outcome of the vires challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 96ZO(5) should be sustained or the matter should be remanded pending determination of the vires challenge to the rule.

Analysis: The vires of Rule 96ZO were stated to be pending before the High Court. In view of the revived challenge to the vires of Rule 96ZO(5), the existing penalty order could not be finally determined on merits. The proper course was to set aside the impugned order and send the matter back for fresh decision after the High Court's ruling on validity.

Conclusion: The penalty issue was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration after the High Court decides the challenge to the vires of Rule 96ZO(5). The appeal succeeded by way of remand.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication on penalty was not concluded finally and was returned for fresh consideration in light of the pending validity challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the validity of the governing penal provision is sub judice, a penalty order based on that provision may be set aside and remitted for reconsideration after the competent court decides the vires question.

---