IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10449 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SELU SIDDIQUE, AGED 39, W/O.SIDDIQUE, MARATTIKUNNEL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN 685 584. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) 10449 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th March , 2010 J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved of the orders passed by the first respondent imposing penalty, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P1 appeal, which is pending consideration before the second respondent. After considering the petition for interim stay, the second respondent passed Ext. P2 order on 21.10.2009 granting interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposits 1.5 lakhs and furnishes security for the balance amount within two weeks. The case of the petitioner is that because of the financial stringency, the petitioner could not comply with the said condition and that the third respondent has initiated revenue recovery proceedings as borne by Ex.P4 which is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the default occurred was never because of any wilful negligence but W.P.(C) 10449 OF 2010 2 because of some unforeseen circumstances and that the petitioner has made necessary arrangements to deposit a sum of 1.5 lakhs. The prayer of the petitioner is that he might be permitted to deposit the said amount and to avail the benefit of interim stay granted by the appellate authority. 4. Going by the admitted facts and figures, this Court finds that there is no challenge with regard to the condition imposed by the appellate authority, while passing Ext. P2 order and that the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court nearly five months after passing such order and that too, without complying with the condition imposed therein. After taking note of the persuasive submission made from the part of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also considering the fact that the appeal is still pending, this Court finds that appropriate directions can be given to the second respondent/appellate authority to finalise the proceedings in accordance with law and also enabling the petitioner to avail the benefit of interim stay granted vide Ext.P2, on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of 'Rs.Two lakhs' within two weeks. On producing the proof W.P.(C) 10449 OF 2010 3 of the deposit, as above, the second respondent shall consider Ext.P1 appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of production of the receipt of deposit.. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk