Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- Aggrieved by the notice dated 25-11-1994 issuedthe first respondent calling upon the petitioner to asum of Rs. 35, 000/-towards the penalty amount, due, petitioner hasfiled the above writ petition to quash the same and issue direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to forbear from taking all further proceedings for the recovery of the penalty of Rs. 35, 000/-imposed by the Thirdrespondent in the order dated 25-10-1993 untilthe appealfiled under Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 pending on the file of the fifth respondentis disposed of. 2.It is seen that the third respondent Deputy Directorof Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Madras by his order dated 25-10-1993 has imposed a personal penaltyof Rs. 35, 000/-against the petitioner for contraventionof Section 29(1)(a) and, Section 9(1)(d) readwith Section64(2)of the Foreign Exchange RegulationAct. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitionerfiled an appeal before the ForeignExchange Regulation Appellate Board -thefifth respondent herein. Accordingto the petitioner, he has also filed an applicationto dispense with the payment of personal penaltyofRs.35, 000/- pendingdisposalof the appeal. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that in the absenceof anyorder being passed in the petitionfiled for dispensing with the payment ofpersonal penalty and in view ofthe fact that the appeal filed by him is pending before thefifth respondent, the impugned recoverynotice issued bythe first respondent cannot besustained. 3.The claimof the petitioner is liable to be rejected for the following reasons : It is true that the petitioner has availed statutory remedy of appeal and filed an appeal before the fifth respondent and also filed the petition to dispense with the payment of personal penalty ofRs. 35, 000/-as ordered by the third respondent. It isequally true that the fifth respondent appellate authority has not passed orders in his petition for dispensing with the payment of the personal penalty. 4.Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, after taking me through the relevant provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, would contend that irrespective of the petition filed for dispensation of the penalty amount before the Appellate Board, it would be open to the concerned authority to recover the penalty amount. 4.Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, after taking me through the relevant provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, would contend that irrespective of the petition filed for dispensation of the penalty amount before the Appellate Board, it would be open to the concerned authority to recover the penalty amount. He has also relied upon the decision ofJanarthanam, J.in the case ofK.M. MohamedYousuf Sulaikha Ummalv.Asst.Director, wherein the learned Judge had an occasion to consider a similar claim.Itwas contended before the learned Judgein as much as theappeal had been entertained by the Board, it is to beinferred by way of implication that thepre-requisiteof the deposit of the penaltyamount hasbeen dispensed with by the Board and byvirtueof such dispensation, it istobe construed that there was no failure on the part ofthe petitioner to obey the direction of theadjudicating authority, in the sense of, not remitting the penaltyamount within the period specified by it. Rejecting thesaid contention, the learned Judge has observed as follows: "12. Such a submission, in the absence of any deeming provision, in the FERA and the Rules cannot at all be acceded to, unless and until there is a specific order by the Board dispensing with the deposit of the penalty amount. The fact that the appeal had been entertained by assigning a specified number is not by itself sufficient to indicate even by way of implication that the deposit of the penalty amount had been dispensed with and the appealhad been taken on file and if at all, in the circumstances it would indicate that a number had been assigned to the appeal for the purpose ofconveniently referring the same in future correspondence. 13. In the absence of any order dispensing with the deposit of the penalty'amount'by the Board, the contravention amounting to an offence under Section 56 of the FERA getsfruitionedbythe elapse of forty-five days from the date of receipt of the adjudication order, which in fact happened in this case, as already adverted to, on 11-11-1986." 5.I am in respectful agreement with theview expressed by the learnedJudge. Apart from this, it is alsobrought to mynotice the decision of aDivision Bench of this court inthecase ofTheAssistantDirector, Enforcement Directorate, Madras v. Hameed Jahuffer @ S.A.Hameed 1996 (1) MLJ 260 ], wherein the Division Bench approved theview expressed byJanarthanam, J.in the above referred decision. Apart from this, it is alsobrought to mynotice the decision of aDivision Bench of this court inthecase ofTheAssistantDirector, Enforcement Directorate, Madras v. Hameed Jahuffer @ S.A.Hameed 1996 (1) MLJ 260 ], wherein the Division Bench approved theview expressed byJanarthanam, J.in the above referred decision. 6.In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. No cost. In view of the orders passed in the writ petition, W.M.P. No. 31929 of 1994 is dismissed.