Mandatory pre-deposit conditions limit writ interference, with relief available only in exceptional cases of gross injustice or palpable illegality.

The writ court's interference with a pre-deposit direction was held to be unavailable on these facts. The court treated the mandatory pre-deposit requirement as a statutory condition for entertaining the appeal and noted that writ jurisdiction to bypass it is confined to exceptional cases involving gross injustice or palpable illegality. Finding no sufficient basis for such exceptional intervention, the court declined to disturb the appellate order and rejected the challenge. It also disagreed with the contrary view of another High Court on waiver of pre-deposit in similar circumstances.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with the appellate order directing the petitioner to make the mandatory pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal.

Analysis: The mandatory pre-deposit requirement was held not to be open to interference in the present writ proceedings. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioner, noting that the cited precedent upheld the statutory pre-deposit provisions and recognised only a limited, exceptional writ jurisdiction where gross injustice or palpable illegality is shown. On the facts, no sufficient ground was found to invoke that exceptional jurisdiction. The Court also disagreed with the contrary view taken by another High Court on waiver of pre-deposit in similar circumstances.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the impugned order directing pre-deposit; the challenge was rejected and the petitioner's writ plea failed.

---