Writ jurisdiction can relax tribunal pre-deposit conditions by allowing a bank guarantee instead of immediate cash deposit.

A High Court exercising writ jurisdiction may, where circumstances justify, modify a tribunal-imposed pre-deposit condition for prosecuting an appeal. Here, the court accepted that financial hardship had been considered and permitted the cash deposit requirement to be replaced by a bank guarantee in the agreed format, to remain alive until disposal of the appeal. It also preserved the tribunal's power to enforce compliance, including dismissal of the appeal if the guarantee was not furnished or the fallback cash deposit was not made within time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the order of the appellate tribunal requiring deposit as a condition for prosecuting the appeal. (ii) Whether the cash deposit requirement could be substituted by a bank guarantee, with liberty to the tribunal to enforce compliance.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the order of the appellate tribunal requiring deposit as a condition for prosecuting the appeal.

Analysis: The order of the appellate tribunal was challenged as a discretionary order declining waiver of deposit. The Court noted that deposit orders of the tribunal had been examined in other matters and that, in the present case, the tribunal had taken into account financial hardship. The Court found it appropriate to interfere with the learned Single Judge's refusal to issue rule and to examine the conditions imposed for the appeal.

Conclusion: The Court interfered with the impugned order and granted relief in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the cash deposit requirement could be substituted by a bank guarantee, with liberty to the tribunal to enforce compliance.

Analysis: In place of the cash deposit, the appellants undertook to furnish a bank guarantee for the full amount in the agreed format, to be kept alive until disposal of the appeal before the tribunal. The Court accepted this arrangement and also provided for cash payment if the guarantee was not furnished by the stipulated date, leaving it open to the tribunal to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance.

Conclusion: The cash deposit condition was modified and replaced by a bank guarantee arrangement, with fallback liability to deposit cash on default.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the pre-deposit condition was relaxed by permitting a bank guarantee in place of immediate cash deposit, subject to compliance within the time allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the circumstances justify, a court exercising writ jurisdiction may modify a tribunal-imposed pre-deposit condition and permit a bank guarantee in lieu of cash deposit, while preserving the tribunal's power to enforce compliance.

---