1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3008 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5199 OF 2000 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd .. Applicants versus The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai .. Respondents Mr.V.V.Tuljapurkar, Sr.. Advocate i/by M/s.Kanga & Co for the applicants. Mr.U.J.Makhija i/by Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 14th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The prayers in this application are totally misconceived. The order dated 26th September 2000 passed by this Court of issuing rule and granting interim relief is very clear. As per the usual terms on which stay has been granted, the petitioners in the writ petition will have to keep on depositing the monthly amount equivalent to the monthly rent. The said order gives liberty to the respondents to take out Civil Application giving details of the compensation due from the petitioners in the writ petition and seek appropriate modification of the interim order. Till today, such application has not been filed by the respondent. If the petitioner in writ petition has not complied with the requirement of depositing an amount equivalent to rent, the compliance shall be made within a period of six weeks from today. If compliance is made, interim stay 2 granted on usual terms will continue to operate till the final disposal of the writ subject to right of the respondents reserved under the order dated 26th September 2000. Subject to what is observed above, application is dismissed. If the writ petition is ready for final hearing, the same shall be added to the appropriate final hearing board. (A.S.OKA,J)