Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.1062 OF 2009 Srinivas Chari ..Petitioner Vs. Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange..Respondent Ms. Divya Bahl i/b. Anil P. D’Souza and Sidhesh Bhole, for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.V. Bharucha, for the respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 2nd July, 2009 P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. In the instant case the appellant, a retired bank employee, has preferred an Appeal before the then Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and had prayed that his application for dispensation be heard at Mumbai as he was not in a position to come to Delhi. On 3rd December, 1997 an order came to be passed staying the application with a direction that the application for dispensation will be heard at Mumbai. Subsequent thereto the matter came to be heard before the successor Tribunal who by the order of 30th October, 1998 vacated the stay dated 3rd December, 1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that this was done without giving him notice. 2. The petitioner thereafter received a notice on 6th December, 2008 of a hearing to be held on 10th December, 2008. The Petitioner was not present, but according to the petitioner he moved an application for adjournment. The Application for dispensation was dismissed on 10th December, 2008 and the Appeal was posted for hearing on 17th February, 2009. This petition was filed subsequent thereto. 3. The consequence of rejection of the application for dispensation would be that the petitioner will have to deposit the penalty of Rs.14.00 lakhs. It is the case of the petitioner that apart from the retracted statement there is no corroborative evidence whereby the petitioner could be held guilty. 4. After hearing the petitioner and considering the order of the A.O., and considering the facts and circumstances in our opinion the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is given an opportunity to contest the appeal by depositing a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs before the Enforcement Directorate within two weeks from today. On such deposit the appeal to be heard on merits. On failure to deposit the appeal to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)