Writ interference refused where pre-deposit conditions were not complied with despite adequate opportunity and consideration.

Writ interference under Article 226 was declined against orders rejecting appeal-related relief for non-compliance with a statutory pre-deposit condition. The petitioner had been given sufficient time to deposit the amount, but paid only a part and failed to satisfy the balance even after extension. The appellate authority had considered the request to dispense with pre-deposit and still permitted deposit followed by an early hearing, so the plea of non-application of mind was rejected. In these circumstances, no legal infirmity or denial of consideration was shown to justify upsetting the discretionary orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 226 was warranted against the dismissal of the appeal and connected application for failure to comply with the pre-deposit condition under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The petitioner had been granted stay subject to a pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000, but did not comply even after extension of time and deposited only Rs. 1,00,000. The appellate authority, while rejecting the request to dispense with the balance pre-deposit, still indicated that the petitioner could make the deposit and seek early hearing. The Court held that the petitioner had enjoyed sufficient opportunity, had failed to comply with the condition, and had not shown any ground for invoking writ jurisdiction to upset the orders. The plea of non-application of mind was rejected because the authority had already considered the request in the context of the conditional stay order.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted and the challenge to the impugned orders failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected for want of merit, and the connected miscellaneous petition also failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal is dismissed or a stay benefit is refused for failure to satisfy an imposed pre-deposit condition despite adequate opportunity, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised to override that discretionary order absent a legal infirmity or denial of consideration.

---