Reasoned pre-deposit discretion upheld where prima facie merits and financial hardship were considered; writ interference refused.

A writ court will not interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with an appellate order imposing a conditional pre-deposit where the authority has considered both the prima facie merits and the financial hardship pleaded, and has exercised discretion reasonably. The Karnataka HC treated the direction to deposit part of the demand as a reasoned exercise of appellate discretion rather than an infirm order. The challenge to the pre-deposit requirement therefore failed, and the writ petitions were rejected, with the appeal to be disposed of expeditiously after deposit of the specified amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the appellate order directing deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs towards pre-deposit, instead of granting unconditional waiver, deserved interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The appellate authority had considered the prima facie case on merits as well as the financial hardship pleaded by the petitioners and, after such consideration, declined unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. The direction to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs out of the total demand was treated as a reasoned exercise of appellate discretion and not as an infirm order warranting writ interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-deposit order failed and no interference was called for; the writ petitions were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were not granted relief against the conditional pre-deposit requirement, though the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously after deposit of the specified amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not interfere with an appellate order on pre-deposit where the authority has considered the prima facie case and financial hardship and exercised discretion reasonably.

---