Mandatory pre-deposit conditions cannot ordinarily be bypassed through writ or review jurisdiction when appealing statutory orders.

Review jurisdiction was declined where the petitioner sought to reopen a challenge to a mandatory pre-deposit condition. The court reaffirmed that the right of appeal is statutory and may be subject to lawful conditions, and that Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to bypass those requirements. It found no basis to direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits without compliance with pre-deposit and held that no error justifying review had been shown. The earlier order therefore remained undisturbed, and no waiver of pre-deposit was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether review jurisdiction should be exercised to interfere with the requirement of pre-deposit and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The review petition merely repeated the earlier challenge to the pre-deposit condition. The Court held that the validity of such conditions was already settled, that the right of appeal is statutory and may be hedged by conditions, and that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to bypass mandatory statutory requirements. The Court also found no basis to direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits without compliance with pre-deposit, and no error warranting review was shown.

Conclusion: The request to invoke review jurisdiction failed, and no waiver of the pre-deposit requirement or interference with the earlier order was granted.

---