Undue hardship in pre-deposit matters must be specifically pleaded; a hearing defect may justify limited review and recovery protection.

A claim of undue hardship against a pre-deposit direction must be specifically pleaded and demonstrated in the stay application; absent such pleading, refusal to waive or reduce the deposit is justified. Where the petitioner asserts that the amended rule was not addressed at the stay hearing, limited corrective relief may be granted by permitting a review application within a fixed time, directing disposal by a reasoned order after hearing, and keeping coercive recovery in abeyance until that decision. The article therefore states that the hardship contention failed, but a procedural remedy remained available to secure reconsideration on the amended-rule issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner had made out a case of undue hardship so as to resist the direction for pre-deposit; (ii) Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity to address the applicability of the amended rule during the stay hearing, warranting limited corrective relief.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner had made out a case of undue hardship so as to resist the direction for pre-deposit.

Analysis: A party seeking relief against a pre-deposit direction must plead and demonstrate undue hardship in the stay application. Where no such pleading is made, the authority is justified in concluding that no case for waiver or reduction of the pre-deposit has been established.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity to address the applicability of the amended rule during the stay hearing, warranting limited corrective relief.

Analysis: Since the petitioner contended that the applicability of the amended rule had not been argued before the authority, the matter warranted a limited remedial course. The appropriate course was to permit a review application within a fixed time, require disposal by a reasoned order after hearing, and keep coercive recovery in abeyance until such decision.

Conclusion: Limited relief was granted by permitting review and staying recovery until disposal of the review application.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not accepted on the undue hardship contention, but the petitioner obtained a limited procedural remedy to seek review and temporary protection against recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim of undue hardship in a pre-deposit matter must be specifically pleaded and shown in the stay application, and where an arguable hearing defect exists, limited relief may be granted by directing reconsideration with hearing and a reasoned order.

---