AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R.Brahmbhatt, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2019 is preferred with following prayers:-
“A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to comply with the Order dated July 3, 2019 passed SCA 4461 of 2019 so as to
initiate sunset review and also suitably extend anti-dumping duty;
B. Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of para 7 (A) above;
and
C. Such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed just and proper may be kindly granted in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.â€
Civil Application (for impleadment) No.2 of 2019 is preferred with following prayers:-
“a) Pass an order allowing the present application and impleading the Applicant as Respondent in the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application in
the Special Civil Application and directing the Petitioner to serve a copy of the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application; or
b) Pass an order allowing the present applicant as intervener in the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application in the Special Civil Application and
directing the Petitioner to serve a copy of the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application;
c) Pass an order rejecting the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application in the captioned Special Civil Application;
d) Pass an order modifying the reliefs granted in the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 03.07.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 4461 of
2019; and
e) Pass such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.â€
3.1 Thus, so far as Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1 of 2019 is concerned, it is for seeking appropriate direction to the respondent for carrying out
and implement the direction rendered by this Court in its order dated 3.7.2019, whereby this Court, while allowing Special Civil Application No.4461 of
2019 issued following directions:-
“25. In view of above, as there is sufficient and substantive material available for initiation of sunset review, the impugned order dated 24.12.2018
is set aside. The respondent-authority is hereby directed to initiate sunset review and also suitably extend anti-dumping duty in accordance with the
provisions of law. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.â€
Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1 of 2019 was warranted on account of inaction on the part of the respondent in implementing the direction,
which was for initiation of sunset review investigation and the requisite issuance of the notification appropriately extending anti-dumping duty as the
original notification was expiring on 23.7.2019 and, in absence of any extension, the entire direction and order would have been rendered infructuous.
Civil Application No.2 of 2019, though ostensibly filed for seeking only impleadment in Miscellaneous Civil Application for resisting the prayer on
account of the facts mentioned thereunder, but it also contains prayer which does not restrict the scope of application as impleadment application only.
Learned counsel for the applicant in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1 of 2019 submitted that the respondents have failed in carrying out the
direction contained in order dated 3.7.2019 and in past also the Court had to pass orders issuing direction for the authorities to comply with the earlier
direction. The Court’s attention was invited to the proceedings of Civil Application (for direction) No.2 of 2019 in Special Civil Application
No.5278 of 2019 and Misc. Civil Application No.2 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No.14204 of 2017, wherein following orders are passed:-
MCA No.2 of 2018 in SCA No. 14202 of 2017
“18. Examining the facts of the present case in the aforesaid backdrop, a Division Bench of this court vide its judgment and order dated 11.6.2018
passed in Special Civil Application No.14202 of 2017 and allied matters, has held that the second respondent Designated Authority could not have
annulled the Sunset Review and was required to bring the Sunset Review to its logical conclusion. The court has, accordingly, set aside the annulment
and directed the respondents No.1 and 2 to do the needful for bringing the Sunset Review to its logical end strictly in accordance with law.
For the purpose of bringing the Sunset Review to its logical end, it goes without saying that it would have to be decided on merits. Therefore, if the
period for completing the Sunset Review is not extended, the judgment and order dated 11.6.2018 passed by this court would be rendered ineffective.
Under the proviso to rule 17(1)(a) of the rules, the Central Government, in its discretion, in special circumstances, can extend further the period of one
year by six months. Thus, the Central Government is required to exercise discretion in special circumstances. Having regard to the findings recorded
by this court in the judgment and order dated 11.6.2018 and the directions issued by it, this court is of the view that special circumstances as
contemplated under the first proviso to rule 17(1)(a) of the rules are made out warranting exercise of discretion there under.
As noted hereinabove, on behalf of the respondent authorities, it had been stated that no application for extension of the period for concluding the
review would be made by the Designated Authority under the proviso to rule 17(1)(a) of the rules till an opinion of the Ministry of Law has been
obtained which would render the judgment and order dated 11.6.2018 passed by this High Court ineffective; the Central Government has not
responded to the representation made by the petitioner for extending the period for concluding the review under; unless an order extending the period
for concluding the review is made under the first proviso to rule 17(1)(a) of the rules today itself, the period for concluding the review would come to
an end and the matter would be rendered infructuous; even if this court passes an order today directing the Central Government to pass an order
under the first proviso to rule 17(1)(a) of the rules, it would not be possible for the Central Government to pass such order today itself. Therefore,
having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and the adamant approach adopted by the Designated Authority in not seeking extension of the period
for concluding the review till an opinion of the Ministry of Law is obtained on the specious ground that this would be construed as the Designated
Authority having accepted such judgment and thereby not respecting the judgment and order passed by this court, this court is of the view that the
interests of justice requires that powers under the first proviso to rule 17(1)(a) of the rules be exercised and the period for completing the Sunset
Review be extended by a period of six months. In the opinion of this court, with due deference to the judgment of this court, the respondent authorities
ought to have extended the period for concluding the review subject to their right to challenge the judgment and order passed by this court, which
would have taken care of the peculiar situation that has arisen in the present case.
In the light of the above discussion, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The period for concluding the Sunset Review regarding
the imports from the subject countries is hereby extended for a further period of six months under the first proviso to rule 17(1)(a) of the rules. Rule is
made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.â€
CA No.2 of 2019 in SCA No.5278 of 2019
“15. The Court is of the view that nothing prevented the respondents from approaching this Court for seeking appropriate relief / clarification.
Unfortunately, close perusal of Office Memorandum dated 6.5.2019 reproduced hereinabove rather indicates the authority's conduct in avoiding the
compliance with the Court's order. The author of the Office Memorandum clearly reveals uncanny and enigmatic recalcitrant approach on the part of
the authority in complying with the order of this Court when these orders being not subjected to any further challenge or sought to be reviewed. The
resultant effect of the two orders i.e. 24.4.2019 and 26.4.2019 left no room for any other option to the authority but to pass appropriate order and
extend the anti-dumping duty notification. We are at pain to observe that para-6 of the Office Memorandum clearly betrays an unlawful and illegal
examining by authority examining the orders of this court. Nothing prevented the respondents from approaching this Court or Supreme Court for
obtaining appropriate orders but in absence thereof the authority themselves cannot decide not to comply with the order.
Against these backdrops, we are called upon to examine the prayers made in this application. If these prayers are not granted, it would amount to
permit the respondents to render petition infructuous solely on account of their omission to file reply and without adjudication, which cannot be
permitted in a society wedding to rule of law. The respondents cannot be permitted to arrogate any jurisdiction and power, which they did not have to
thwart and impead the operation of Court's order. Therefore, we are of the considered view that appropriate relief, at this stage, if not granted, it
would result into miscarriage of justice, which cannot be permitted and hence the respondents are hereby directed to comply with the order dated
24.4.2019 and 26.4.2019, operative part whereof, have been reproduced hereinabove, as a result thereof, the authority shall issue extension
notification, extending the anti-dumping duty, as ordered in order dated 24.4.2019.
In view of aforesaid, NOTICE returnable on 12.6.2019. Shri Kshitij Amin, learned counsel and Shri Nirzar Desai, learned counsel waives service
of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,3,4 and 2 respectively. The respondent no.1 through an officer not below the rank of Secretary of the
concerned department shall file an affidavit explaining as to why appropriate action be not initiated for non-compliance with the orders of this Court.â€
6.1 By placing reliance upon these two orders, it was indicated by the counsel for the applicant that unfortunately it is always required to obtain orders
of the Court after the directions are issued for seeking implementation thereof and as the other matters indicate that there is lack of action for
implementing the orders, present Miscellaneous Civil Application was warranted and it is filed.
6.2 Counsel for the applicant submitted that perhaps on account of the Notification dated 24.7.2014 which was the subject matter of proceedings
before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4810/2014 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.4886 of 2014 and the judgment dated 31.5.2018 passed
in these matters, the authorities might have taken time but the authorities themselves have been, despite the order of the Delhi High Court, continued
and acted as if the Notification dated 24.7.2014 was operational and pursuant thereto the collection of anti-dumping duty was continued on the subject
goods. The original petition contains specific averment to this effect in paragraphs 14 to 16 and the respondent i.e. the Designated Authority, Director
General of Trade Remedy as well as Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue or any other respondent did not put forward any pleadings qua the
effect of Delhi High Court judgment and order dated 31.5.2018 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4810/2014 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.4886 of
2014 on the Notification dated 24.7.2014, so as to question the very petition and its prayer.
6.3 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant further submitted that not only did the respondent concerned acted under Notification dated 24.7.2014
and levied and collected the anti-dumping duty but the sunset review application dated 26.10.2018 was considered on merits and rejected on merits
without even adverting to the judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court in respect of Notification dated 24.7.2014. In other words, it was
submitted that the authority did not invoke the Delhi High Court judgment and order in respect of the Notification dated 24.07.2014 for rejecting
straightway the sunset review application and chose to examine the same on merits and after holding that there was no requirement for sunset review
rejected the initiation of the sunset review which gave rise to the filing of Special Civil Application No.4461 of 2019 and, in the proceedings of the
same petition all the respondents were duly served and they filed their affidavits, however, they did not chose to raise any contention for resisting the
prayer made in the petition on the basis of the Delhi High Court judgment dated 31.05.2018 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4810/2014 and Writ
Petition (Civil) No.4886 of 2014 in respect of Notification dated 24.07.2014.
6.4 The counsel for the applicant submitted that the Ministry of Finance and Director General of Trade Remedies could not have, on account of
inaction, rendered the petition and the order of this Court infructuous, as the attempt is evident from the submission made on behalf of the authorities
by Shri Nirzar Desai, the counsel representing them. The Office Memorandum pressed into service by the counsel for the official respondent dated
18.07.2019 cannot be permitted to render the petition, which has been allowed by this Court, infructuous without there being any adjudication upon the
merits and demerits of the order dated 03.07.2019 wherein this Court allowed the petition and issued direction. The fact remains to be noted that the
Delhi High Court’s order is subject matter of S.L.P. and the Supreme Court issuing notice thereon and granting no stay, in itself would not render
any justification to the respondents’ inaction, as the same is likely to result into rendering the entire proceedings infructuous only on account of
their inaction and lack of appropriate submission before the Court.
6.5 The counsel expressed apprehension qua the order of this Court being rendered infructuous on account of the inaction on the part of the
concerned authority as nothing prevented the authority from complying with the order of this Court contained in judgment dated 03.07.2019, merely by
expressly making it subject to result of any challenge or any further proceedings that may be advised or taken by the authorities. Mere passing of
Office Memorandum would not absolve the respondents of their bare minimum liability to comply with the order of this Court which, in no way, would
have affected their right to assail the order of this Court or seek clarification from the Court by way of review etc. The inaction on the part of the
respondents in any of the direction and merely passing Office Memorandum in itself may not be permitted to render the petition and the order thereon
infructuous.
6.6 This Office Memorandum is containing facts which indicate that the so-called acceptance of the judgment of the Delhi High Court is only a device
to take a stand before the Court that the said Notification is no more in existence and it is a diametrically opposite stand taken only with a view to
avoid compliance which otherwise is clearly enuring till date. Such practice is deprecated by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2019 passed in Civil
Application No.2 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No.5278 of 2019. Relevant paragraphs of order dated 9.5.2019 read as under:-
“11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance copy places on record the Office Memorandum dated 6.5.2019. The same is
also reproduced for the sake of ready reference.
:Office Memorandum:
Subject : Order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 5278 of 2019 regarding the Sunset Review of Anti-dumping investigation concerning
imports of “Paracetamol†originating in or exported from China PR-reg.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court orders dated 24th & 26th April, 2019, in the Special Civil Application No. 5278
of 2019 (copies enclosed).
To briefly recapitulate, M/s. Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Private Limited had filed Special Civil Application No. 5278 of 2019 in the Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court, challenging the sunset review final findings of Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), Directorate General of Trade
Remedies, Department of Revenue and CBIC are respondents in the case.
The anti-dumping duty was imposed vide notification No. 25/2013-Customs dated 26.10.2013 for a period of 5 years. The Directorate General of
Trade Remedies (DGTR) initiated sunset review vide notification dated 7/16/2018-DGAD dated 24.5.2018 and recommended extension of anti-
dumping duty till 26.4.2019. Accordingly, vide notification No. 39/2018-Customs (ADD) dated 20.08.2018 anti-dumping duty on imports of
'Paracetamol' originating in or exported from China PR, was extended till 26.4.2019.
3.1 Subsequently, the DGTR in the final findings in the aforesaid Sunset Review investigation did not recommended continuation of anti-dumping duty
on imports of 'Paracetamol' originating in or exported from Chine PR. These recommendations were accepted by the competent authority and vide
notification No. 19/2019-Customs (ADD) dated 16.04.2019, anti-dumping duty was withdrawn.
Further, an e-mail was received from petitioner's counsel on 25.04.2019 enclosing therewith orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dated
24.04.2019. However, in this regard neither any petition/notice was serviced upon, nor comments were sought from the Department of Revenue
(DoR). Vide said order, the Hon'ble High Court directed to extend the validity of notification No. 39/2018-Customs (ADD) dated 20.08.2018 by two
months. However, the notification had already been rescinded (vide notification No. 19/2019-Customs (ADD) dated 16.4.2019), upon approval of the
Finance Minister, therefore, the factual position was intimated to Hon'ble Court through Counsel after obtaining approval from the Revenue Secretary.
On 26th April, 2019 we had received another e-mail from Ms. Gargi Vyas, advocate for the petitioner, regarding another order of the Hon'ble High
Court of Gujarat, dated 26.04.2019, as informed the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in its order dated 26.04.2019 had suspended the effect and
implementation of the notification No. 19/2019-Customs (ADD) dated 16.4.2019. It appears that the decision by the Hon'ble High Court dated
26.04.2019 was issued upon bringing to the Court's notice of the fact of rescinding of impugned notification. The order was served on us at 21:00 hrs
on 26.04.2019.
In the said order, the Hon'ble High Court had suspended the extending notification No. 19/2019-Customs (ADD) dated 16.4.2019. While suspending
the notification dated 16.04.2019 has not issued any further direction with reference to its earlier order dated 24.04.2019 for extending the validity of
notification No. 39/20180-customs (ADD). The original validity of notification No. 39/2018-Customs (ADD) was upto 26.04.2019. However, upon
acceptance of findings in sunset review, this notification was rescinding on 16.04.2019. The suspension of rescinding notification by the Hon'ble High
Court would not extend the validity of Notification No. 39/2018-customs (ADD) beyond 26.04.2019. In the circumstances no further action remained
at end of DoR, in the matter. As regards further course of judicial remedy, if any, the matter is being forwarded to your office with the approval of
Revenue Secretary, for appropriate examination on merit and action.â€
….....
The Court is of the view that nothing prevented the respondents from approaching this Court for seeking appropriate relief / clarification.
Unfortunately, close perusal of Office Memorandum dated 6.5.2019 reproduced hereinabove rather indicates the authority's conduct in avoiding the
compliance with the Court's order. The author of the Office Memorandum clearly reveals uncanny and enigmatic recalcitrant approach on the part of
the authority in complying with the order of this Court when these orders being not subjected to any further challenge or sought to be reviewed. The
resultant effect of the two orders i.e. 24.4.2019 and 26.4.2019 left no room for any other option to the authority but to pass appropriate order and
extend the anti-dumping duty notification. We are at pain to observe that para-6 of the Office Memorandum clearly betrays an unlawful and illegal
examining by authority examining the orders of this court. Nothing prevented the respondents from approaching this Court or Supreme Court for
obtaining appropriate orders but in absence thereof the authority themselves cannot decide not to comply with the order.
Learned counsel appearing for the official respondents contended that except placing this Office Memorandum on record, he has nothing further to
say, as according to him in absence of any pleadings on the record qua Delhi High Court judgment and its aftermath from either the Ministry of
Finance or the Director General of Trade Remedies he cannot make any further submission nor can he deny the fact that the anti-dumping duty
pursuant to the Notification dated 24.07.2014 has been levied and collected despite the order of the Delhi High Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant in Civil Application No.2 of 2019 submitted that the Delhi High Court judgment dated 31.5.2018 rendered in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.4810/2014 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.4886 of 2014 had the effect of quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 24.07.2014
and, thereafter, though the anti-dumping duty levied and collected on the import of the subject goods, the same was not legal and proper and could not
have been collected. The SLP filed by the concerned party before the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court only issued notice without granting
any relief against operation of Delhi High Court judgment and, therefore, the Delhi High Court judgment which is, of course, subject matter of scrutiny
by the Supreme Court cannot be said to be stayed or rendered inoperational so far as the Notification of 24.07.2014 is concerned, so as to give any
right to the original petitioner to seek sunset review and further proceedings based upon its declining on whatsoever ground. Therefore, the entire
challenge was based upon the premise of non-est Notification as the Notification of 24.07.2014 had been set aside by the Delhi High Court and
pendency of SLP therefrom would not infuse any life into it in absence of any stay order or interim order by the Supreme Court.
8.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for applicant in Civil Application No.2 of 2019 that the conduct of the authority of non-issuing any
withdrawal Notification pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court setting aside the Notification dated 24.07.2014 in itself would not revive the
Notification which was otherwise set aside by the competent Court and, therefore, the entire proceedings were without any basis. The conduct of the
respondents in levying and collecting the anti-dumping duty based upon the Notification and rejection of sunset review application on merits also would
not confer any actionable right to the original petitioners so as to act as if the Notification dated 24.07.2014 was operational and enuring. The counsel
appearing for the applicant in Civil Application No.2 of 2019 also invited the Court’s attention to the fact that the judgment and order dated
03.07.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.4461 of 2019 is also subject matter of challenge by way of proceedings being Diary No.24738 of
2019 before the Supreme Court. The counsel also invited the Court attention to the application filed by the present petitioners in the pending
proceedings in which Delhi High Court judgment was challenged seeking appropriate direction.
Civil Application No.2 of 2019 is objected, as the applicants have not chosen to approach this Court at any point of time and exporter cannot be said
to be in any manner affected or interested party so far as sunset review is concerned and the Supreme Court has fixed the matter for final disposal on
07.08.2019 and, therefore, nothing prevented the respondents from complying with the direction issued by this Court, subject to the result of the
proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The Court has considered the rival contentions. This Court is of the view that the learned counsel for the applicant of Miscellaneous Civil
Application No.1 of 2019 is absolutely justified in contending that the respondents could not have remained silent after the order dated 03.07.2019 and
acted as if its duty was over by passing Office Memorandum dated 18.07.2019, and the respondents have no unfettered right to keep changing the
stand in the legal proceedings. The close reading of Office Memorandum dated 18.7.2019 leaves much to comment upon, as it is absolutely silent qua
the date of acceptance of the order of Delhi High Court dated 31.5.2018 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4810/2014 and Writ Petition (Civil)
No.4886 of 2014. In paragraph 2.2, one line mentions about acceptance of the order by the Government. If the Government has accepted the order
then levying and collecting anti-dumping duty till 18.7.2019 remains to be answered. The conduct of the respondent did not show that the Delhi High
Court Judgment was accepted right on the date it was rendered. Had the same been the case, there would not have been any existence or
continuance of levying and collecting of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods. The counsel appearing for the applicant in Civil Application No.2 of
2019 very fairly submitted that all along the anti-dumping duty levying and collecting had not been stopped, though in some cases the goods were taken
on furnishing the bonds and in some cases by payment of anti-dumping duty. Therefore, as stated herein above, the statement in Office Memorandum
made on behalf of the Government leaves much to ponder, however, we hasten to add here that the said Office Memorandum is not under challenge
before this Court but the same Office Memorandum is surely pressed into service to justify the inaction on the part of the authority, after receipt of the
order of this Court dated 3.7.2019. Therefore, we surely would like to examine the same as to how far the said Office Memorandum could be pressed
into service for justifying the inaction or omission on the part of the authorities concerned. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner has made
clear averment adverting to the order rendered by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4810/2014 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.4886 of 2014
and the same being subject matter of challenge in Special Leave Petition (C) No.15859-15861/2018, wherein the Supreme Court had also issued
notice. These averments have not been denied nor have they been explained to clear the stand by the respondents. It is required to be noted that so
far as the Ministry of Finance is concerned, it has not chosen to file reply though it is duly served in the main petition proceedings. Reply filed on
behalf of the Director General of Trade Remedies is, in fact, not taking or revealing any stand which can be said to be based upon Delhi High Court
judgment and order in respect of Notification dated 24.7.2014, rather it proceeds as if Notification dated 24.7.2017 is still in existence, enuring and
operational and, therefore, when the Court has rendered the decision based upon such premise, it was rather bare minimum requirement on their part
to challenge the order of this Court before the Supreme Court or file a review petition before this Court or seek at least some clarification on the order
passed, based upon their wisdom which appears to have been dawning on them only after they receive Court’s order dated 3.7.2019 passed in
Special Civil Application No.4461 of 2019. The said uncanny action and unjustified inertia on the part of the respondent provided an unacceptable lack
of regard to the Court proceedings and orders. We are of the view that the authorities could not have sat silent over the direction issued by this Court
on 3.7.2019 nor is the authority justified in passing the Office Memorandum on 18.7.2019 indicating thereby that the action on their part in taking a
clear stand before this Court in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.4461 of 2019 and their action of levying and collecting anti-dumping
duty based upon Notification dated 24.7.2014 was a lack of due appraisal to this Court as if it was a duty cast upon someone else but not upon the
respondent to apprise this Court. The respondents unfortunately instead of shouldering the responsibility and accepting its omission has rather betrayed
and attempting to shirk its responsibility by issuing Office Memorandum dated 18.7.2019 as if the same was sufficient to explain or rather justify
inaction on their part after they received the order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4461 of 2019 dated 3.7.2019. The Office
Memorandum dated 18.7.2019 also has effect of compounding the confusion at-least after 18.7.2019 as prior thereto all the concerned including the
respondents themselves have acted as if the notification dated 24.7.2019 was operational and they rather levied and collected the anti-dumping duties
on the subject goods. We hasten to add here that we do not, for a minute, countenance the collection of duty in case if it was found to be illegal nor do
we endorse any attempt to justify the same. This Court was required to proceeds on a premise as if the respondents had continued with Notification
dated 24.7.2014 and the sunset review was rejected on that basis. Therefore, this order may not be in any manner construed as giving any new life to
the Notification as the earlier order is based upon the premise stated in the petition but that cannot be treated as countenancing or infusing any life. In
absence of any review petition or clarificatory petition, we need not further elaborate on this aspect. Therefore, we are of the view that no further
orders are required to be passed by this Court in the proceedings of Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1 of 2019 nor are we inclined to pass any
order so far as Civil Application No.2 of 2019 is concerned. As we have already elaborately discussed the reasoning for the rejecting both the
applications, both the applications are hereby rejected.
The present order shall not be treated as an order in review in absence of any proceedings to this effect nor the same may be treated as
clarification. It goes without saying that if hiatus result on account of action or inaction affecting the parties’ legal rights and remedies, the same
would always open to be urged as the omission on the part of concerned or the Court proceedings shall not in any manner prejudice the parties' legal
right and their enforcement.
With these observations, we dispose of both the Applications as no orders could be passed on either of them.