Pre-deposit condition replaces cost direction, preserving the statutory appeal subject to timely compliance.

The Court declined to disturb the direction requiring the party to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, but it modified the monetary direction by treating the amount as a pre-deposit required for maintaining the appeal. Compliance was made a condition for presentation and consideration of the appeal on merits before the adjudicating authority. The effect was to preserve the appellate remedy while converting the original cost direction into a deposit condition linked to the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to pay costs deserved interference and whether the amount directed to be paid should instead be treated as pre-deposit for the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The Court declined to interfere with the direction relegating the appellant to the appellate remedy. It, however, modified the monetary direction by requiring deposit of the amount before the adjudicating authority, to be treated as the requisite pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal. The appeal was also directed to be presented within the stipulated time and to be considered on merits upon compliance with the deposit condition.

Conclusion: The cost direction was modified into a pre-deposit condition, and the appellant was permitted to pursue the appeal subject to compliance.

---