Functus officio limits tribunal enforcement; non-implementation of orders may need writ relief, while consolidated rectification can still be sought.

A tribunal cannot compel implementation of its final order against a non-party authority acting under a different statutory regime after it has become functus officio; where an order is not being implemented, the proper remedy lies before the jurisdictional High Court by writ petition. The Tribunal also declined to direct a food-adulteration authority to permit import of the consignment because that authority said the goods could not be allowed under the applicable law and it was not a party to the appeal. At the same time, it granted the appellant further time to examine the order and file one consolidated rectification application for typographical errors.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal could direct implementation of its earlier order by an authority alleged to be acting under a different statutory regime and against a non-party authority, or whether the remedy lay elsewhere; (ii) Whether the appellant should be granted further time to identify and consolidate typographical errors for rectification in the earlier final order.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could direct implementation of its earlier order by an authority alleged to be acting under a different statutory regime and against a non-party authority, or whether the remedy lay elsewhere.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that once a statutory authority does not implement an order, the appropriate remedy is to approach the jurisdictional High Court by writ petition. It further held that it could not compel an authority dealing with food-adulteration law to permit import of the consignment when that authority took the stand that the goods could not be allowed under the applicable law. The Tribunal also held that it could not issue such directions to an authority that was not a party to the appeal, and that after passing the final order it had become functus officio.

Conclusion: The request for directions to implement the earlier order was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant should be granted further time to identify and consolidate typographical errors for rectification in the earlier final order.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the rectification application referred to certain typographical errors and considered it appropriate to allow the appellant additional time to examine the order minutely and identify all such errors in one application so that they could be corrected together.

Conclusion: Further time was granted for filing a consolidated rectification application.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was rejected, while the rectification request was disposed of by permitting a fresh consolidated application for typographical corrections.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot compel implementation of its order against a non-party authority acting under a separate statutory regime after becoming functus officio, and the proper remedy for non-implementation lies before the jurisdictional High Court.

---