Supervisory review under Article 226 does not upset a reasonable pre-deposit order absent perversity or legal error.

Article 226 review of a tribunal's pre-deposit direction is supervisory, not appellate, so interference lies only if the order is perverse, unsupported by evidence, contrary to law, or breaches natural justice. The tribunal had heard the parties, considered the material, and exercised discretion in fixing the deposit, which was below 10% of the penalty and was regarded as reasonable in light of serious allegations of clandestine excise evasion. No interference was warranted and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Tribunal's direction requiring pre-deposit of Rs. 2 crores each as a condition for hearing the excise appeals.

Analysis: The writ court's power under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate. Interference with an order directing pre-deposit is warranted only where the order is perverse, unsupported by evidence, contrary to law, or violative of natural justice. The Tribunal had heard the petitioners, considered the material before it, and exercised its discretion in fixing the pre-deposit amount. The Court found that the amount directed was less than 10% of the total penalty and that the Tribunal had acted reasonably in the background of serious allegations of clandestine evasion of excise duty.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the Tribunal's pre-deposit order, and the challenge failed.

---