Article 227 supervisory review does not extend to discretionary tribunal orders absent jurisdictional error or manifest injustice.

Article 227 supervision is limited to jurisdictional error, serious procedural irregularity, patent error, perversity, or manifest injustice, and not a reappraisal of discretionary tribunal orders. Because an alternative statutory remedy existed and the appellate tribunal's modification of the condition for setting aside the ex parte order was a discretionary exercise, the High Court found no basis to interfere. The condition requiring deposit was not shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or beyond jurisdiction, so the tribunal's order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the Appellate Tribunal's order modifying the condition for setting aside the ex parte order.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is confined to cases of lack of jurisdiction, serious procedural irregularity, patent error, perversity, or manifest injustice. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy and the limited scope of review over discretionary orders of the tribunals weighed against interference. The modified condition requiring deposit of Rs. 1 lakh was treated as an exercise of discretion by the Appellate Tribunal and not shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the Appellate Tribunal's order and upheld the condition imposed for setting aside the ex parte order.

---