VBC 1 wp5481.11-26.9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5481 OF 2011 Mr.Neelakant Devadasan & Anr. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr.Ashok M.Saraogi with Ms.Kenny Desai for the Petitioners. Ms.Aparna D.Vhatkar, AGP for Respondent No.1. Ms.Sapna Rachure i/b. T.N.Tripathi & Co. for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. September 26, 2011. P.C. : A recovery certificate has been issued against the Petitioners in pursuance of an order dated 24 July 2000 passed by the DRT. The total amount due and payable under the recovery certitificate as on 24 February 2011 is Rs.4.05 crores. An application was made by the Petitioners for setting aside the order dated 24 July 2000 which was allowed by the Presiding Officer on 19 December 2000 subject to the deposit of an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. That order has attained finality right upto the Supreme Court. In his affidavit in reply, the Senior Manager of the Second Respondent, Central Bank of India, has stated that by an order VBC 2 wp5481.11-26.9 dated 25 June 2001, the Supreme Court had extended time for effecting deposit by a period of three months. Admittedly, that amount was not deposited. 2. The Petitioners filed a substantive appeal against the order of the Tribunal of 24 July 2000, seven years thereafter, in 2007. On an application for waiver of pre-deposit, an order was passed by the DRAT on 15 March 2011, requiring the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.2 crores by 18 May 2011 failing which the appeal was to stand dismissed. On 19 May 2011, the appeal was dismissed for want of compliance with the order of deposit. The Petitioners did not institute a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in order to challenge the order of the DRAT dated 15 March 2011 passed on the application passed for waiver of pre- deposit until 4 June 2011. By that date, the appeal was dismissed for want of compliance. 3. Be that as it may, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the DRAT on 19 March 2011 requiring the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.2 crores, as an amount of Rs.4.05 crores is due and payable to the Bank under the recovery certificate. The VBC 3 wp5481.11-26.9 discrepancies in the accounts which were pointed out to the Chairperson of the DRAT would be adjudicated upon when the appeal would be heard. The hearing of the appeal is, however, conditional on compliance of the order of pre-deposit. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Bank, it has also been stated that despite a prohibitory order, the Petitioners have sold certain immovable property. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, which have been noted in the reasons indicated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the impugned order, and for the reasons which we have indicated hereinabove, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution has been made out against the order of pre-deposit. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that the Petitioners are not in a position to effect compliance with the order of pre-deposit even now and hence, they do not seek any extension of time. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( A. A. Sayed, J.)