Article 226 interference with interlocutory pre-deposit orders is unwarranted when financial hardship is considered and no apparent error exists.

Interference under Article 226 is ordinarily unwarranted against a reasoned interlocutory pre-deposit order of an appellate authority, especially where the authority has considered financial hardship and no apparent error is shown. The Tribunal had reduced the pre-deposit of duty and penalty from the original demand while the appeal remained pending, and the High Court declined to disturb that interim order. The note affirms that judicial review is not normally exercised to interfere with a purely interlocutory order on pre-deposit when the authority has applied its mind to the relevant circumstances.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Tribunal's interlocutory order requiring a reduced pre-deposit of duty and penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal had considered the petitioner's financial hardship and reduced the amount directed to be deposited from the original duty demand and penalty to lesser sums. The impugned order was only an interim order in a pending appeal. In such circumstances, and in the absence of any apparent error on the face of the order, judicial interference under Article 226 was held to be unwarranted against a purely interlocutory order passed by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere and upheld the Tribunal's interlocutory pre-deposit order.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference under Article 226 is ordinarily not justified against a reasoned interlocutory order of the appellate authority on pre-deposit, particularly where the authority has considered financial hardship and no apparent error is shown.

---