IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33275 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ AJITH KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, LAKSHMI AGENCIES, NILESHWAR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, HOSDURG.671 121. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE.673 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33275 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 common interim order issued by the 2nd respondent on stay petitions filed along with the statutory appeals. 2. Against Exts.P1 and P2 orders of assessment relating to the years 1989-'90 and 1990-'91, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeals, the petitioner had also preferred stay petitions. Ext.P3 is the common order passed on the stay petitions, by which interim stay was granted subject to condition of the appellant remitting 25% of the balance amount and furnishing security for the remaining amount. 3. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority has not properly considered the grounds raised in the appeals and the impugned order was issued without proper application of mind. It is contended that the condition was W.P.(C) No. 33275/2010 2 imposed in a mechanical manner, without considering merits of the contentions. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P3 order it is noticed that the appellate authority had illustrated all the main grounds raised in the appeal. It is also noticed that the applications for stay were disposed of, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P3 order that all the contentions raised by the petitioner were considered by the appellate authority, and having been convinced that the petitioner had established a prima facie case, conditional stay was granted. With respect to the condition imposed, I am of the opinion that it could not be termed as 'rigorous', which is causing any onerous liability on the petitioner to comply with. 5. Under the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P3 order and accordingly the writ petition deserves no merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period stipulated in Ext.P3 for W.P.(C) No. 33275/2010 3 compliance of the condition stands expired. He seeks indulgence of this Court in extending the period, on the specific undertaking that the petitioner will comply with such condition. I am inclined to allow the prayer made in this regard. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. But I make it clear that if the petitioner complies with the condition stipulated in Ext.P3 within a period of one month from today, the same shall be treated as proper compliance. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.