IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1036 OF 2009 Mohanlal Lokumal Punjabi & Anr. ...Petitioners. v. The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.V.R.Nankani with Mr.Kokhawale i/by M/s.Nankani & Associates , advs. For the Petitioners. Mr. P.S.Jetly with Mr.M.S.Bhardwaj and Mr.P.Khosla , advs. For the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 Grievance of the petitioner is, his application for stay was dismissed ex-parte. It appears that by order dated 17th December, 2008, petitioners were directed to deposit entire amount of penalty. By order dated 31st March, 2009, the order was varied by adjusting the amount already adjusted against the amount of penalty. 3 In our opinion, the Tribunal really cannot be faulted for having proceeded ex-parte in absence of lawyer who has filed his vakalatnama. However, considering the facts and circumstances in order to enable the petitioner to prosecute the appeal, we propose to pass the following order. i Petitioner No.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.3.50 lacs within 4 weeks from today. ii Petitioner No.2 to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within four weeks from today. iii On such deposit, the appeal to be heard on merits. On failure to deposit, the appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution. We make it clear that these are amounts apart from the amounts already adjusted. 4 Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)