Pre-deposit discretion and stay pending appeal do not automatically stop recovery; expeditious consideration of interim relief was directed.

Filing of an appeal and stay application does not, by itself, bar recovery or justify quashing a detention order. The appellate authority retains statutory discretion under the pre-deposit framework to consider waiver on proof of undue hardship, and interference is warranted only where there is inordinate, unexplained delay or a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. On the facts, no material showed that the stay application had been declined or left pending unreasonably. The request to quash the detention order was rejected, but the appellate authority was directed to decide the interim application expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order could be quashed merely because the appeal and stay application were pending, and whether a direction should issue for expeditious disposal of the stay application.

Analysis: The appellate authority has the statutory discretion under the pre-deposit provision to consider waiver of deposit on showing undue hardship, and its failure to act justifies interference only where there is inordinate, unexplained delay or refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Filing of an appeal, by itself, does not create an automatic right to unconditional protection against recovery. On the facts, no material showed that the appellate authority had declined to consider the stay application or had unreasonably delayed its disposal so as to warrant quashing the detention order.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the detention order was rejected, but a direction was issued to the appellate authority to consider and decide the interim application expeditiously.

---