Tribunal direction for re-adjudication declined where prior compliance was lacking and writ proceedings remained pending.

A request for a further direction to implement an earlier Tribunal order and resume re-adjudication was rejected because the applicant had not strictly complied with the prior direction to produce evidence within time. The Tribunal also noted the absence of proof that effective steps had been taken to secure disposal of the writ petition pending before the High Court. In those circumstances, it found no deliberate disobedience on the part of the Assistant Commissioner in waiting for the writ matter to conclude, and considered the concern of judicial discipline relevant. The authorities relied on by the applicant were distinguished on their facts, so the application was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for a direction to the original authority to implement the Tribunal's earlier order and proceed with re-adjudication was maintainable in view of the applicant's alleged non-compliance and the pending writ proceedings before the High Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the applicant had not strictly complied with the earlier direction to produce evidence within the stipulated time. It was also noted that no evidence was produced to show any effective steps taken by the applicant to secure disposal of the writ petition pending before the High Court. On these facts, the Tribunal held that there was no deliberate disobedience by the Assistant Commissioner in declining to proceed while the High Court matter remained pending, and the apprehension of judicial indiscipline could not be ignored. The authorities cited by the applicant were found to be distinguishable on the facts.

Conclusion: The request for a further direction was not accepted and the application was rejected.

---