Pre-deposit requirement controls writ maintainability when appeal is rejected before payment, and binding precedent prevails.

A writ petition challenging rejection of an appeal was held not entertainable where the petitioner had paid the 12.5% pre-deposit only after the appeal was already rejected. The HC followed binding Division Bench rulings on the pre-deposit requirement and held that it could not issue an order contrary to that precedent. It also noted that a Supreme Court order passed under Article 142 does not enlarge the High Court's powers or permit departure from binding law. The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the impugned rejection of the appeal undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained after the petitioner paid the pre-deposit only after rejection of the appeal, in the face of the binding Division Bench view and the Supreme Court order passed in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitioner had paid 12.5% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit only after the appeal had already been rejected. The impugned order was held to be in accordance with the existing Division Bench rulings. The subsequent Supreme Court order was noted to have been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, a power not available to the High Court. In view of the binding Division Bench decision, the High Court held that it could not pass an order contrary to that view.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal leaves the impugned rejection of the appeal undisturbed and affirms that the High Court would follow the binding precedent on the pre-deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court cannot invoke equitable considerations to pass an order contrary to binding precedent, and a Supreme Court order made in exercise of Article 142 does not expand the High Court's powers.

---