IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10909 of 2011(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ALEX JOSE, VALIYAVEEDAN GENERAL STORES, CHENGANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHENGANNUR - 689 121. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM - 691 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10909 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 interim order issued by the 2nd respondent appellate authority. The petitioner had filed stay petition along with Ext.P2 statutory appeal which was instituted against Ext.P1 order of assessment. The stay petition was disposed of through Ext.P3 order granting conditional stay insisting upon the petitioner to make payment of 50% of the balance amount due and on furnishing adequate security for the remaining amounts. 2. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority had imposed the condition in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. It is the specific contention that none of the grounds raised in the appeal nor the contentions urged at the time of hearing were considered by the appellate authority. Ext.P3 is a totally non-speaking order and it will not reflect any consideration of the contentions, nor any reasoning is mentioned for imposing condition for payment of 50%, is the contention. 3. It is trite law by this time that the statutory appellate authorities are expected to mention reasonings while granting interim orders. It is evident from Ext.P3 that the appellate authority had briefly illustrated the contentions raised. But the W.P.(C).10909/11 -2- impugned order does not reflect any proper advertence to such contentions nor it is evident that the appellate authority had applied its mind with respect to the merits of such contentions. It is further noticed that there is absolutely no reasoning mentioned with respect to imposition of condition. Under such circumstances I am of the view that Ext.P3 order impugned in this writ petition is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. However, I am not proposing to remit the matter back to the appellate authority for passing fresh orders, with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and also taking note of the fact that the appeal itself is pending consideration and disposal before that authority. Ends of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to have disposal of the appeal on an early basis and till then to restrain recovery steps subject to imposition of condition of a less rigorous nature. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time the appeal is disposed of, in modification of Ext.P3 order, it is directed that, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 is restrained subject to condition W.P.(C).10909/11 -3- of the petitioner remitting 25% of the total amount in dispute and also on furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb