Limited interference with conditional stay orders applies only when discretion is manifestly wrong, perverse, or arbitrary.

The High Court will not interfere with a discretionary conditional stay order unless the discretion is shown to be manifestly wrong, perverse, arbitrary, or vitiated by non-application of mind. Where the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal granted a stay of recovery of disputed tax on conditions, the single Judge found the order to be supported by the surrounding circumstances and not arbitrary or mechanical. On appeal, no manifest error or perversity was established, so interference was unwarranted and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's conditional stay order in exercise of writ appellate jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Tribunal granted a conditional stay of recovery of disputed tax. The single Judge considered the surrounding circumstances and held that the order was not arbitrary, mechanical, or vitiated by non-application of mind. In appeal, interference with a discretionary order was held to be unwarranted unless manifest error, perversity, or arbitrariness was shown, which was not established on the facts.

Conclusion: The impugned order did not call for interference and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary writ order unless the discretion has been exercised in a manifestly wrong, perverse, or arbitrary manner.

---