Pendency of Supreme Court appeal does not suspend a CEGAT release order; interim release of goods was ordered.

Pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court does not, by itself, stay operation of a CEGAT order directing unconditional release of goods. The High Court held that the order could not be treated as suspended merely because an appeal and stay application were filed, and it was competent to grant effective relief in the writ proceedings without sending the petitioners to the Supreme Court. As the non-compliance with the CEGAT direction had continued without justification, interim release of the goods was ordered, subject to payment of rent charges for the time being.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were bound to give effect to the CEGAT order directing unconditional release of the goods despite the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court; and whether interim release of the goods was warranted in the writ proceedings.

Analysis: The pendency of an appeal, even if maintainable, does not by itself stay the operation of the order under challenge. The High Court held that it could not treat the CEGAT order as suspended merely because an appeal and stay application had been filed before the Supreme Court. It further held that it was within its jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief rather than direct the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court. The prolonged non-compliance with the CEGAT order was also treated as unjustified.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to interim release of the goods, and directions were issued to give effect to the relief sought in prayers (f) and (h), on payment of rent charges for the time being.

---