IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18276 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAMALUDEEN KUNJU, B.M. AGENCIES, MEMANA, OACHIRA.P.O, KOLLAM - 690 526. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 526. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEAL)-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM - 13. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KARUNAGAPALLY -690 518. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.18276 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is mainly aggrieved of Exts.P1, P4 and P6 orders passed by the concerned respondents, which however have been subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P2, P5 and P7 appeals, pending consideration before the second respondent. The present grievance is in respect of Ext.P10 notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to realize the amount due under Ext.P1, whereby huge liability has been cast upon the petitioner; while the interlocutory application for stay preferred along with Ext.P2 appeal has been considered and Ext.P3 order has been passed by the second respondent, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability so as to avail the benefit of the interim stay, during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no reason has been given in Ext.P3 so as to have imposed the condition directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability. This cannot be considered as a 'speaking order' at all; submits the W.P(C) No.18276 of 2010-B 2 learned counsel. More so, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ravi Gupta V. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi & another (2009) 22 VST 529 (SC). 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the second respondent was not at all correct in imposing the condition without considering the merits projected from the part of the petitioner, simply directing to satisfy 50% of the liability for availing the benefit of interim stay. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider the petition for stay stated as preferred along with Ext.P2 appeal and fresh orders shall be passed thereon in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such orders are passed afresh in the interlocutory application for stay, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab