IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9711 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ V.N.THUSHAR, VELLAPPILLY, KANICHUKULANGARA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691001. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, CHERTHALA, 688530. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9711 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P7 series of interim orders issued by the 1st respondent appellate authority were challenged in this writ petition on the ground that, insistence of the condition for payment of 60% of the amount was done in a mechanical manner, without adverting to the contentions raised in the appeals in its real perspective. Assessments completed against the petitioner for the years 2005-06 to 2008-09 were challenged in appeals filed before the 1st respondent. The impugned interim orders were issued on the interim applications filed along with the appeals. 2. While considering sustainability of the impugned interim orders, it is noticed that, the appellate authority had illustrated all the main contentions raised by the petitioner. It is also noticed that the interim orders were issued after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the main ground raised, the appellate authority 2 W.P.(C).No.9711 of 2011 found that a prima facie case has been established for granting conditional stay. However, the appellate authority had failed to observe any reasons for insisting upon condition for payment of 60 % of the balance tax. Hence, I am of the view that the interim orders impugned suffers from non- reflection of convincing reasons for imposition of the conditions. 3. However, when the writ petition came up for consideration, this Court had issued an interim order dated 31.3.2011, directing the petitioner to remit 30% of the tax amount due and to furnish security bond for the balance, within a period of one month from the date of the order. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the stipulations contained in the interim order has already been complied with. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that, ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals on an early basis. 3 W.P.(C).No.9711 of 2011 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P5, P5(a),P5(b) and P5(c) appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time the appeals are disposed of, recovery of amounts due shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner had already complied with the conditions stipulated in the interim order issued on 31.3.2011. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/