1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1224 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 V.Subbulakshmi ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent/Respondent Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 27.09.2011, made in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.11085 of 2008. M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.11085 of 2008:- Petition praying to grant an order of AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the Respondent, their men or agent or anybody claiming through them from in any way conducting the auction sale either on 29-09- 2011 at 11.00 a.m. or on the subsequent dates as per the Auction Notice issued by the Respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/2845/2000, dated 27-07-2011 pending disposal of W.P.(MD)No.11085 of 2008 to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the file of the respondent in his Auction notice in Na.Ka. No.A3/2845/2000 dated 27.7.2011 and quash the same. For Appellant : Ms.R.Hemalatha For Respondent : Mr.V.Pandi, Government Advocate. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] This writ appeal is directed against the interim order, dated 27.09.2011, passed by the writ court in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 in W.P.(MD)No.11085 of 2011. The Writ Court, while granting an order of interim injunction, imposed a condition that the appellant should pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court with this writ appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.Mr.V.Pandi, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent. By mutual consent of the counsel on either side, the main writ petition itself is taken for final disposal at the time of admission itself. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by the respondent even without affording an opportunity and without issuing any show cause notice. It is further contended that the appellant is a widow and her deceased husband was the proprietor of the business concern and as such she has been put into great hardship and she is not in a position to raise funds to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned counsel would further submit that some leniency may be shown, more particularly not only on the ground of appellant being a widow and she was not in-charge or responsible for the business concern but also on the ground of merits. She would further submit that the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the order passed by the writ court. 6.At the outset, it is to be stated that the impugned order passed by the respondent is in respect of payment of sales tax arrears to the tune of Rs.71,13,918/-. Considering the matter on merits and also considering the fact that the appellant being a widow, the writ court has shown some indulgence by granting the relief of interim injunction on condition that the appellant should pay Rs.5,00,000/-. However, learned counsel for the appellant now submitted before us that it is very difficult for the appellant to raise such an amount as she has already lost her husband, who was the sole proprietor of the business concern and further due to financial constraint, the appellant may not be in a position to comply with the condition imposed by the writ court while granting the interim relief. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, more particularly the appellant being a widow and she is not responsible for the business activities and further that the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, this court is inclined to modify the condition imposed by the writ court by directing the appellant to pay Rs.3,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,00,000/-. 8.Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of by modifying the order passed by the writ court to the effect that there will be an order of interim injunction on condition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To: The Commercial Tax Officer, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1224/2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:09.11.2011 gb RJ/16.11.11 3p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/