Discretionary stay orders in writ jurisdiction are not interfered with absent arbitrariness, illegality, or lack of application of mind.

A discretionary stay order will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is shown to be arbitrary, illegal, or lacking application of mind. The tribunal's order was upheld because it reflected due consideration of the reduced part payment after tax deduction at source, and it was not rendered unlawful merely because different conditions were imposed in other matters. As the order was neither unreasoned nor arbitrary, the writ challenge failed and the petition was dismissed, while time was extended for compliance and the tribunal was left to proceed on merits after deposit and reporting of payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tribunal's order on the stay application called for interference in writ jurisdiction, and whether the writ petition could be maintained on the ground that the order was unreasoned.

Analysis: The tribunal's order was found to reflect application of mind, since the quantum of part payment fixed by the first appellate authority had been reduced after tax was deducted at source. The discretionary exercise was treated as reasonable and non-arbitrary, and it was held that the order could not be labelled illegal merely because different conditions had not been imposed in other matters. As the order on stay was not shown to be arbitrary or unreasoned, interference in writ jurisdiction was declined.

Conclusion: The challenge to the stay order failed and the writ petition was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, though time was extended for compliance, with consequential proceedings before the tribunal to continue on merits upon deposit and reporting of payment.

Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary stay order will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is shown to be arbitrary, illegal, or lacking application of mind.

---