* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No.232/2008 % Decided on: 14th May, 2008 M/S.PROMINENT TOURS & TRAVELS PVT LTD & ANOTHER ..... Appellants Through Mr.Ajay Majithia with Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Akshaj Malik for Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CJ (Oral) CM No.7123/2008 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. LPA 232/2008 & CM Nos.7122 & 7124/2008 1. By the order under appeal the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants assailing the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, rejecting the (LPA 232/2008) Page 1 of 4 appellants’ application seeking dispensation of the pre-deposit of the penalty as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. 2. The appellants have sought waiver of pre-deposit not on any ground of financial incapacity or that deposit of the amount would cause hardship, but the order has been assailed primarily on the ground which relates to the merit of the contentions in the appeal filed. The learned single Judge relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Limited & others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260 has held that waiver of pre-deposit on the ground of merits of the appellant’s case in the pending appeal is not permissible. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others (supra) while deprecating the practice of granting interim order, which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason that prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and host of other considerations had all the same, held as under: (LPA 232/2008) Page 2 of 4 “All this is not to say that interim orders may never be made against public authorities. There are, of course, cases which demand that interim orders should be made in the interests of justice. Where gross violations of the law and injustices are perpetrated or are about to be perpetrated, it is the bounden duty of the court to intervene and give appropriate interim relief. In cases where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizen's faith in the impartiality of public administration, a Court may well be justified in granting interim relief against public authority. ............ There can be and there are no hard and fast rules. But prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for. There are several other vital considerations apart from the existence of a prima facie case. There is the question of balance of convenience. There is a question of irreparable injury. There is the question of the public interest. There are many such factors worthy of consideration.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the instant case the appellants have shown prima facie case and in spite of that, if they are to make pre-deposit of penalty amount, they are bound to suffer grave irreparable injury. He submitted that making a deposit, which is onerous and not mandated by law, has resulted in serious hardship being caused to the appellants. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants, we have gone through the relevant records including the order of the Tribunal. It is seen that the Tribunal has prima facie come to (LPA 232/2008) Page 3 of 4 the conclusion that the activities of the Cashier, who is responsible to the company, are required to be owned by the appellants. Any violation of the legal provisions by a servant or agent can be treated as violation on behalf of the principal employer. We do not see any ground to interfere with the reasoning of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The time to make deposit of the penalty is extended by a further period of eight weeks’ from today. The pending applications stand closed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR MAY 14, 2008 (JUDGE) “nm” (LPA 232/2008) Page 4 of 4