Judicial discretion in answer-script deposits: no fixed ceiling, no vested right to retain, and final appropriation may follow costs

In writ proceedings seeking production of answer scripts, the Court's direction for pre-trial deposit is a matter of judicial discretion and procedural security, so no fixed ceiling can be imposed as a rule of law; the amount must depend on the facts, the examinee's hardship, and the likely expense. A deposit order does not create a vested right in the Council to retain the amount, and res judicata does not apply because the order is not a substantive determination of the dispute. The Court may, at final hearing, appropriate the deposited amount towards costs, exercising judicial discretion under the applicable procedural framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court may impose a ceiling of Rs. 500 per answer script as a pre-condition for production of answer scripts in writ proceedings; (ii) Whether an order directing pre-trial deposit creates a vested right in the Council to retain the amount; (iii) Whether the Court may, at final hearing, direct appropriation of costs from the amount deposited earlier.

Issue (i): Whether the Court may impose a ceiling of Rs. 500 per answer script as a pre-condition for production of answer scripts in writ proceedings;

Analysis: The power to direct deposit in aid of production of answer scripts is a matter of judicial discretion exercised under the Court's writ jurisdiction and the applicable procedural rules. The amount, if any, must be fixed on the facts of each case after balancing the hardship to the examinee and the expense likely to be incurred by the Council. No uniform or inflexible ceiling can be laid down as a rule of law.

Conclusion: The ceiling of Rs. 500 per script was not upheld. The issue was answered against the proposition supporting a fixed ceiling.

Issue (ii): Whether an order directing pre-trial deposit creates a vested right in the Council to retain the amount;

Analysis: A direction for deposit is only a procedural security arrangement and does not amount to payment or create an absolute entitlement in favour of the Council. The principle of res judicata does not apply because the deposit order is not itself the subject-matter of the writ dispute and does not decide a substantive issue between the parties.

Conclusion: The deposit order did not create a vested right in the Council to retain the amount. The issue was answered in the negative.

Issue (iii): Whether the Court may, at final hearing, direct appropriation of costs from the amount deposited earlier;

Analysis: The Court retains discretion to appropriate the deposited amount at the time of final disposal in accordance with the costs jurisdiction recognised by the procedural rules and the Code of Civil Procedure. Such discretion must be exercised judicially, having regard to the merits, demerits, and overall hardship in the case; no rigid formula can govern appropriation.

Conclusion: The Court may direct appropriation of costs from the deposited amount at final hearing. The issue was answered in the affirmative.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by holding that no fixed ceiling can govern pre-trial deposits for production of answer scripts, that such deposit does not confer a vested right of retention on the Council, and that the Court may finally determine appropriation of the deposited amount in the exercise of judicial discretion.

Ratio Decidendi: Orders for pre-trial deposit in writ proceedings are matters of judicial discretion and procedural security, not rigid rules of entitlement or res judicata, and the deposited amount may be finally appropriated by the Court according to the circumstances of the case.

---