JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- "(a) The record of the case may kindly be called for, (b) The application of the petitioners for exemption of 50% of pre-deposit amount before respondent No. 2 may kindly be allowed, (c) The respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to adjudicte the appeal No. 539/2018 on merits without insisting on the deposition of pre-deposit amount. (d) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favourable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner." 2. In the first round of litigation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17305/2018 was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 3.11.2018 which reads as under:- "Learned counsel Shri Kuldeep Mathur submits that in view of the law as laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh through District Magistrate, Ghaziabad & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 10873/2018) decided on 01.11.2018, the petitioner may be given liberty to pursue the matter in the appellate jurisdiction of the DRAT. He further submits that in view of the fact that in the previous round of litigation i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13814/2017, this Court has waived 50% predeposit mandatorily required for filing the appeal, the DRAT may be directed to consider such prayer of the petitioner for entertaining the appeal while waiving the pre- deposits of 50%. The prayer so made is justified. Thus, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the impugned order (Annexure-15) dated 23.10.2018 passed by the DRT, Jaipur in S.A. No. 80/2016 by filing an appeal before the DRAT, New Delhi. He may file an application for waiver of 50% of pre-deposit before the DRAT which shall be considered sympathetically and keeping in view the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13814/2017. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition as well as stay application are disposed of." 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the DRAT against the order passed by the DRT dated 23.10.2018 along with an application for waiver of 50% pre-deposit. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition as well as stay application are disposed of." 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the DRAT against the order passed by the DRT dated 23.10.2018 along with an application for waiver of 50% pre-deposit. The DRAT on the appeal as well as on the exemption application filed by the petitioner issued the notice to the respondents vide order dated 6.11.2018 and the said application for waiver of 50% pre-deposit is still pending before the DRAT. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that DRAT vide order dated 6.11.2018 while issuing notice to the respondents has mentioned that Tribunal can only grant waiver of 25% pre-deposit. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on certain judgments: (1) Ashutosh Suitings Private Limited & Ors. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Anr. (SBCWP No. 13814/2017) decided on 14.11.2017. (Raj. High Court). (2) Vinay Rai v. IFCI Ltd. & Ors. :: AIR 2008 Delhi 65 (3) Pritesh Meghaji Penthani v. Union of India (Special Civil Application No. 5760 of 2012) decided on 11.8.2014 (Gujarat High Court) (4) Poonam Manshani v. J& K Bank Ltd. And Another (WP No. 13042/2009) decided on 10.11.2009 (Delhi High Court). 6. Counsel for the respondent submits that the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of 50% pre-deposit is still pending before the DRAT and DRAT has to consider the direction passed by this Court earlier in SBCWP No. 17305/2018, therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is pre-mature. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd and Ors. v. Umakanta Mohapatra and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 10243-10250 of 2018 decided on 5.10.2018 which reads as under:- "1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by Honble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 , the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets andEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). 4. v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 , the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets andEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). 4. The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows:- "18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Another, (1997) 6 SCC 450 , observing:- "32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops."" 5. The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside. 6. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. 7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of." 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons: firstly, the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of 50% pre-deposit is still pending before the DRAT and no final decision is taken by the DRAT till date. 9. Secondly, this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition being SBCWP No. 17305/2018 filed by the petitioner has already given a direction to the DRAT for considering the application for waiver of 50% pre-deposit submitted by the petitioner sympathetically. Thirdly, in view of the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. (supra), I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. 10. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed.