1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 915 OF 2009 Ashok Jogani ... Petitioner Vs. The Office of the Special Director of Enforcement and others ... Respondents Shri Kedar Dighe for the Petitioner Mr. Rui Rodrigues with Mr. Kiran Kandpile for the respondents CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 17th December, 2009. P. C. 1. Admittedly, by an order dated 25.4.2008, the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi has directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the quantum of the penalty as pre- deposit within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order. It was observed that if the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount, the appeal would stand dismissed. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner’s advocate received this order on 20.5.2008 in Delhi. On 15.5.2009 the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order dated 25.4.2009. It is pointed out to us that on 16.4.2009, the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange has passed the final order. The Appellate Tribunal has observed that the petitioner has failed to take steps in compliance of the order of pre deposit dated 25.4.2009, despite taking several adjournments and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non compliance of the conditional order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as, the order dated 25.4.2009 was received by the petitioner after about one year, he could not have complied with the order and therefore, it was wrong on the part of the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on 16.4.2009 on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the amount as directed by order dated 25.4.2008. 3 4. Admittedly, under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the petitioner can prefer an appeal against the final order passed by the Tribunal. The order dated 25.4.2008 which is challenged in this petition has now merged into final order dated 16.4.2009. In the circumstances, since an alternative remedy is available, it is not possible for us to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner may adopt the alternative remedy if he so desires. 5. Needless to say that if the petitioner has bonafide filed this petition believing that this is the only remedy available to him, that may be taken into consideration by the Court seized of the appeal filed by him while considering the aspect of condonation of delay. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (RANJANA DESAI, J.) jpc/-