IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 33613 of 2006(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.GAYLORD CONSTRUCTIONS, ANGAMALY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K.A.PAULOSE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.K.J.CHERRY BABU. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ANGAMALY. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 33613 of 2006 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext.P2 assessment order passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 petition for stay and after considering the I.A. for stay, Ext.P6 interim order was passed directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed tax and to furnish security for the balance amount so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition challenging the correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed by the appellate authority as above. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 19-12-2006, the learned Government Pleader was required to get instructions and an interim order was passed intercepting with the coercive proceedings on condition that the petitioner deposited 25% of the penalty as per Ext.P6 within one month. It is noted by the Registry, as per endorsement dated 29- 08-2008, that no memo regarding payment of 25% of the penalty has been received. The fact remains that the writ petition stands WPC.33613/06 : 2 : still to be admitted. It appears that the petitioner is no more interested in the cause of action projected in the writ petition. There is no representation for the petitioner as well. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for default. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) aks