Writ revival after appellate remedy declined where pre-deposit relief could be sought before the Appellate Tribunal.

A revival application for a writ petition was declined where the petitioner had already been relegated to the statutory appellate remedy against an appealable order. The Court noted that the petitioner's complaints about inability to make the pre-deposit and alleged wrongful fastening of liability had already been considered when the writ was earlier disposed of. As the Appellate Tribunal could consider waiver or relief concerning pre-deposit in accordance with law, there was no basis to reopen the prior disposal. The application was therefore not entertained, and the petitioner was left to pursue the appeal remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application seeking revival of a writ petition, after the petitioner had already been relegated to the appellate remedy, deserved to be entertained.

Analysis: The application was founded on the petitioner's asserted inability to make the pre-deposit required for filing an appeal and on the grievance that the impugned order wrongly fastened liability. The Court noted that these grounds had already been considered when the writ petition was earlier disposed of and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy. Since the impugned order was appealable and the petitioner could seek waiver of pre-deposit before the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law, there was no basis to reopen the earlier disposal.

Conclusion: The application for revival was not entertained and was rejected in effect, leaving the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy and seek appropriate relief regarding pre-deposit before the Tribunal.

---