SHIBANI ENGINEERING SYSTEMS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard. The only justification that was put forth for not complying with the order of the CEGAT was the Department's intention to file Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, as is clear from Exhibit T dated 20th October, 1992. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is not in a position to make any statement as to whether or not, the Special Leave Petition has at all been filed.

(2.) Mr. Pochkhanawala, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, informs us after ascertaining, that he is in a position to make a statement that till date no such Special Leave Petition ha been filed.

(3.) Settled legal position is that mere filing of the Special Leave Petition is not decisive of the matter. There is no justification whatsoever for detaining the issuance of detention certificate by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 consequent upon the order of the CEGAT. We therefore direct them to issue detention certificate within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to mention that thereafter consequential action as per law will be taken by Respondent No. 4.