Pre-deposit waiver under Section 35F requires proof of hardship; photocopies and bare assertions do not justify writ interference.

Waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 35F depends on a proper factual basis showing entitlement and undue hardship. Where the applicant failed to produce original documents for verification and relied only on photocopies instead of duly certified copies from the Range Superintendent, and placed no concrete material to show that deposit would cause hardship, the Tribunal's discretion could not be treated as arbitrary or perverse. In such circumstances, interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in ing waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 35F, and whether interference was warranted on the ground of hardship.

Analysis: The petitioner had not produced the original documents required for verification under the rules, and the material before the Tribunal showed only photocopies rather than duly certified copies from the Range Superintendent. On the question of hardship, no concrete material was placed before the Tribunal to establish that deposit of the demanded amount would cause undue hardship. In such circumstances, the Tribunal's exercise of discretion under the proviso to Section 35F could not be termed arbitrary or perverse, and no ground was made out for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Conclusion: The refusal to waive the deposit requirement was upheld and the writ petition failed.

---