Writ interference limited where stay application is dismissed for non-prosecution and an effective remedy remains before the Tribunal.

Interference in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted where the Tribunal had dismissed the stay request for want of prosecution and a fresh application remained available. The impugned order showed that only the stay component of the joint application had been rejected, while the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit was still undecided. Because an efficacious remedy remained before the Tribunal and no exceptional ground for supervisory interference was shown, the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the Tribunal's order dismissing the stay application for want of prosecution and declining to grant interim protection against recovery, where the request for waiver of pre-deposit remained undisposed of.

Analysis: The impugned order showed that only the stay component of the joint application had been rejected, while the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit had not yet been decided. As to stay of recovery, the application had been dismissed for want of prosecution after rejection of an adjournment request. The availability of a fresh application before the Tribunal meant that no ground for supervisory interference was made out.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was unwarranted and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an interim application is dismissed for want of prosecution and an efficacious course remains open before the Tribunal, the High Court will not ordinarily interfere in writ jurisdiction.

---