IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15566 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ARUN K. ABRAHAM, S/O.MATHEW ABRAHAM, AGED 32, KARIMKUTTIYIL, ANGADI.P.O., RANNY-689 674. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM. PIN-691 001. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 645. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 15566 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge is against Ext.P7 interim order passed by the 1st respondent appellate authority disposing the stay petitions filed along with Exts.P2, P4 and P6 appeals, which were filed against Ext.P1, P3 and P5 orders of assessment. The assessments in question pertains to the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Challenge is made against the assessments on various grounds. The petitioner sought stay of the collection of the tax amount in dispute, pending disposal of the appeals. Through Ext.P7 the 1st respondent appellate authority had granted interim stay imposing condition on the petitioner making payment of 50% of the amount due and on furnishing security for the balance. 2. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order on the ground that the condition imposed for payment of 50% is highly unreasonable and arbitrary. It is specifically WP(C) 15566/2011 2 contended that the appellate authority had imposed such a condition in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without considering merits of the contentions raised. It is also contended that Ext.P7 is a totally non speaking order which will not reflect any consideration of the merits of the contentions raised . 3. On a perusal of Ext.P7 it is revealed that the order was issued after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Eventhough the appellate authority had narrated the main ground as well as the contentions raised at the time of hearing, nothing is reflected in the order regarding consideration of the merits of such contentions. It is trite law by this time that the statutory appellate authorities are exercising quasi judicial powers and they are expected to write reasoned orders with respect to granting of interim relief. An order which will not reflect any consideration of the contentions and mechanical imposition of penalty will not stand the test of sustainability in legal WP(C) 15566/2011 3 parlance, in view of the settled precedents. 4. Under such circumstance, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P7 is an order which is totally unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly Ext.P7 is hereby quashed. However I am of the opinion that remitting of the matter to the 1st respondent for passing fresh orders will only result in multiplying the proceedings. Since the appeals are pending consideration and disposal before the 1st respondent, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued for an early consideration of the appeal and till then to restrain the recovery steps subject to conditions to be imposed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P2, P4 and P6 appeals after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. WP(C) 15566/2011 4 6. Till such time the appeals are disposed of as directed above, recovery of the amounts in dispute shall be kept in abeyance subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the total amount due and on furnishing security bond for the balance, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. While remitting payment of 1/3rd as insisted above, credit shall be given to payments if any already made against the disputed amounts. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) 15566/2011 5