IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18894 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SI PROPERTY (KERALA) PVT.LTD. SILVER OAKS, NEAR GOLF CLUB, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHEELA.M.P. BY ADV. MR.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) MR.K.S.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (W.C.) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ......................................... WP (C) No. 18894 of 2010 ......................................... Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ------------------------ The petitioner is aggrieved of the condition imposed by the appellate authority while passing Exhibit P7 interim order of stay, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and to furnish security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner being aggrieved of Exhibit P1 and P2 assessment orders in respect of the different assessment years, has approached the appellate authority by filing Exhibit P3 and P4 appeals, along with Exhibit P5 and P6 petitions for stay. The appellate authority passed Exhibit P7 order, simply observing that a final decision could be WP (C) No. 18894 of 2010 2 arrived at only after thorough analysis of the case and imposing a condition to satisfy the payment of 50% of the disputed tax in the meanwhile. Learned counsel for the petitioner says absolutely no reason has been stated in the said order and hence it is liable to be declared as a non-speaking order. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that, on the basis of the materials on record, that the case of the petitioner has very much been discussed as discernible from the impugned order itself. But what is the effect of the points pressed is not discussed, but for the observation in page 6 that final decision can be arrived only after a thorough analysis. In this circumstance, this Court finds that interest of justice could be satisfied only by directing the appellate authority to consider and pass final orders on the appeals in accordance with law. 4. In the above circumstance, the appellate WP (C) No. 18894 of 2010 3 authority/the second respondent is directed to consider and finalize Exhibit P3 and P4 appeals by passing final orders there, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will continue to have the benefit of interim stay, on condition that 1/3rd of the outstanding liability is satisfied, instead of 50% ordered by the appellate authority and on furnishing security for the balance amount. Considering the fact that the time stipulated by the appellate authority is already over, the petitioner is granted a further period of two weeks to comply with the requirements. The Writ Petition is disposed of, as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc