Financial hardship must be considered before fixing pre-deposit; ignoring it can justify supervisory correction and remand.

Supervisory jurisdiction may be invoked where a Tribunal fixes pre-deposit without considering a pleaded and material financial hardship claim. The text notes that the petitioner had asserted a precarious financial position and had earlier obtained complete waiver on that basis, yet the impugned order did not reflect consideration of that aspect. On that footing, the order was found to suffer from error requiring correction, the stay order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on the stay application in accordance with law and the petitioner's financial condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in directing pre-deposit without considering the petitioner's financial hardship and whether the impugned stay order called for interference under Article 227.

Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioner had specifically pleaded a precarious financial position and had earlier obtained complete waiver of pre-deposit on the same ground. It found that the impugned order did not reflect any consideration of this material aspect while fixing the amount of pre-deposit. In these circumstances, the order suffered from error warranting correction in supervisory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the stay application afresh in accordance with law, keeping the petitioner's financial condition in view.

---