No deposit for wholly disputed penalty where Tribunal is not constituted; interim stay granted pending its constitution.

Where a statutory appeal cannot be effectively pursued because the Tribunal has not been constituted, and the penalty is disputed in full, a precondition requiring deposit of any amount was held unsustainable. The Orissa HC noted that the cited deposit requirement for an appellant before the Tribunal did not apply to compel payment in these circumstances. Interim protection was therefore granted by staying enforcement of the impugned appellate order until four weeks after constitution of the Tribunal, with the writ petition disposed of.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a constituted Tribunal, the petitioner could be required to deposit any amount towards penalty disputed in full for obtaining stay of the appellate order, and whether interim stay of the impugned order should be granted.

Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioner disputed the penalty in entirety and could not prefer and prosecute the statutory appeal because the Tribunal had not been constituted. It further held that the cited pre-condition for an appellant before the Tribunal did not justify requiring deposit of any sum towards a wholly disputed penalty in the present situation.

Conclusion: The Court held that there was no provision to require deposit of any amount towards the disputed penalty in these circumstances and granted stay of the impugned order until four weeks after constitution of the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection was granted to the petitioner against enforcement of the impugned appellate order, with the writ petition disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal cannot be effectively pursued because the Tribunal has not been constituted, and the penalty is disputed in entirety, the Court may not insist on a deposit of any amount towards that penalty as a precondition for interim stay.

---