Mere filing of an appeal does not stay compliance with a tribunal order; final time granted for implementation or challenge.

Non-implementation of a prior tribunal direction under Rule 41 to amend shipping bills did not justify treating a defective High Court appeal as a stay, because mere filing of an appeal without any stay does not suspend compliance with the order. The Tribunal noted that the Department had not shown effective pursuit of its challenge at the High Court stage, but it nevertheless granted one final opportunity instead of issuing immediate coercive directions. Further time was allowed for the Department either to implement the earlier order or to pursue the writ petition before the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether immediate directions should be issued to enforce the earlier tribunal order under Rule 41, or whether the Department should be granted further time to comply or pursue its challenge before the High Court.

Analysis: The earlier order had already directed amendment of the shipping bills and the present application arose from non-implementation of that direction. The record showed that an appeal had been filed in the High Court, but it was defective and had not been pursued to a stage where any stay against implementation was shown. Mere filing of an appeal, without a stay, does not suspend compliance with the tribunal's direction. At the same time, the circumstances persuaded the Tribunal to extend one last opportunity instead of issuing immediate coercive directions.

Conclusion: Further time was granted to the Department to either implement the earlier order or pursue the writ petition before the High Court.

---