Article 226 interference with conditional stay orders is unwarranted absent illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 with an interlocutory order granting stay of recovery on conditional payment and security terms. The appellate authority had heard the petitioner, acted on the record, and exercised jurisdiction to impose conditions while granting interim stay pending revision. A conditional stay order, by itself, did not establish illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, or denial of hearing. As the order was interim in nature and passed within statutory power, writ interference was held unwarranted, and the recovery-related order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the appellate authority's interlocutory order granting stay of recovery on conditional payment and security terms.

Analysis: The order impugned was passed after hearing the petitioner and considering the records. The authority had jurisdiction to impose conditions while granting interim stay pending revision. A conditional stay order, by itself, did not show illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, or lack of hearing. Since the order was interlocutory and within statutory power, the case did not call for writ interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the interim stay order failed and interference under Article 226 was declined.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and the recovery-related interim order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court will not interfere under Article 226 with an interlocutory stay order passed within jurisdiction unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, illegal, or perverse.

---