ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 924 of 2016. 4. The limited grievance in this appeal is in respect of the observation made in paragraph 65 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: "But appellant has persistently submitted that it has bona fide accumulated stock pending the writ appeal. True, the appellant never enjoyed a stay in the appeal. Yet only to adjust equities, we hold that the appellant can clear the stock it had accumulated until 31.12.2017. And the respondent authorities can ensure that the appellant will not export more than what had been gathered by them." 5. According to the appellants, during the pendency of writ petition before the High Court, interim orders were passed from time to time by the High Court permitting the writ petitioners to dispose of the piled up stock of Shark fins despite the issuance of notification but strictly in terms of the interim orders. However, no interim relief was granted to the writ petitioners during the pendency of the writ appeal before the Division Bench. This fact has been noted by the High Court in paragraph 65, extracted above. Despite that the writ petitioners have been allowed to dispose of the stock which have been accumulated by them during the pendency of the appeal until 31.12.2017. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents - writ petitioners would contend that the writ petitioners had filed an affidavit before the Division Bench on 23.02.2018 setting out the relevant details regarding the stock of Shark Fins in its possession. 7. The fact remains that the stated affidavit came to be filed before the Division Bench after the arguments in writ appeal had concluded and the Court had deferred the same for pronouncement of the reserved judgment, but before the impugned judgment was pronounced. Further, it is not clear whether the High Court had taken the said affidavit into account for granting limited relief to the writ petitioners even though had rejected their challenge to the notification. Besides, the appellant-Union of India has had no opportunity to respond to the said affidavit or take any particular stand in that regard. 8. Further, it is not clear whether the High Court had taken the said affidavit into account for granting limited relief to the writ petitioners even though had rejected their challenge to the notification. Besides, the appellant-Union of India has had no opportunity to respond to the said affidavit or take any particular stand in that regard. 8. Taking an overall view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to set aside paragraph 65 in the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the High Court only for the limited purpose of considering the facts set out in the affidavit filed by the respondents - writ petitioners dated 23.02.2018, with liberty to the appellants herein - Union of India to respond to the said affidavit and to raise all contentions, as may be available, to oppose the request of the writ petitioners for permitting them to export the stock of Shark fins accumulated during the pendency of the appeal. A ll questions in that behalf are left open to be decided by the High Court on its own merits in accordance with law. We request the High Court to decide the remanded issue expeditiously. 9. Appeal disposed of in the above terms. No costs.