Pre-deposit waiver discretion must rest on undue hardship and prima facie case; unsupported assumptions can invalidate refusal.

A statutory appeal subject to pre-deposit requires the waiver or reduction discretion to be exercised on relevant judicial factors, including undue hardship, prima facie case, and the appellant's conduct. The Tribunal failed to apply the prima facie case test and relied on an insufficiently reasoned assumption about the petitioner's means without material showing adequate property. On that basis, the discretionary refusal of dispensation was not shown to rest on a proper judicial foundation and was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in refusing dispensation of pre-deposit and in requiring deposit as a condition for entertaining the appeal.

Analysis: The statutory right of appeal was subject to pre-deposit, but the discretion to waive or reduce deposit had to be exercised judicially on relevant considerations, including undue hardship, prima facie case, and the conduct of the appellant. The Tribunal had not applied the test of prima facie case and had proceeded on an insufficiently reasoned assumption regarding the petitioner's means, without identifying any material showing that he possessed adequate property. In these circumstances, the discretionary order was not shown to have been made on a proper judicial basis.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant dispensation of pre-deposit was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit waiver under a statutory appeal provision must be decided judicially on relevant factors such as undue hardship and prima facie case, and an order based on irrelevant assumptions or without proper consideration of those factors is liable to be set aside.

---