IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32685 of 2010(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MOHANAN PILLAI, PLAMTHUNDIL VEEDU, CHERUPOIKA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 00I . 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506 . 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 00I . 5. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 32685 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 interim order issued by the statutory appellate authority, the second respondent herein. Through Ext.P3 order, stay petition filed along with appeal filed against Ext.P1 order of assessment, was disposed of. After elaborate consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal, the second respondent found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for granting conditional stay and interim stay was granted on condition of the petitioner remitting 50% of the balance tax and penalty due, within two weeks from the date of receipt of that order. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P3 order, I do not find any illegality or infirmity warranting interference. It seems that the second respondent had applied its mind and had adverted to the grounds raised in the appeal. The 2 WP(C) No. 32685/2010 condition imposed while granting stay also could not be termed as rigorous or unreasonable. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an alternate prayer for granting time for complying with the conditions incorporated under Ext.P3. It is submitted that the petitioner is in stringent financial situation and he is unable to comply with the condition within the time stipulated. The petitioner seeks three months' time for compliance of the condition. 4. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. The prayer for granting three months' time was stiffly opposed. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, eventhough interference on merits against Ext.P3 order is unwarranted, the period stipulated for compliance of the condition can be extended for a term of one month from today. 6. Under the above circumstances, while dismissing 3 WP(C) No. 32685/2010 the Writ Petition, it is made clear that if the petitioner complies with the condition stipulated in Ext.P3 order within a period of one month from today, the same will be considered as proper compliance of the terms of that order. 7. Needless to say that further steps of recovery shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today in order to facilitate the petitioner to comply with the condition as allowed hereunder. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc