JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. The petitioner is a Wakf. The 2nd respondent-Senior Superintendent of the Kerala Wakf Board assessed the petitioner u/s 72 of the Wakf Act for contributions for the period from 1990-91 to 1997-98 and for the period from 1998-1999 to 2001-2002 by Exts. P1 and P2 assessment orders. The petitioner filed Exts. P3 and P4 appeals against the assessment orders. By Exts. P5 and P6 appellate orders, the 1st respondent set aside the assessments and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. But, while doing so, the 1st respondent imposed a condition that as a condition for such remand, the petitioner has to deposit 25% of the amount demanded by Exts. P1 and P2. Although the petitioner filed revisions before the Wakf Tribunal, by Ext. P7 order, the Tribunal refused to entertain the same on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the condition in Exts. P5 and P6, by which, as a condition for remand, the petitioner was directed to pay 25% of the amount demanded as per Exts. P1 and P2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 2. When an assessment order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration, there is no subsisting demand for any amount. That being so, the 1st respondent could not have validly imposed a condition that the petitioner should deposit 25% of the amount demanded in Exts. P1 and P2 as a condition for remand. In the above circumstances, that condition in Exts. P5 and P6 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the assessments as directed in Exts. P5 and P6 orders without insisting on such deposit. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Disposed Off.