1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 3669 of 2010 M/s Carrier Airconditioning and Refrigeration Limited ..Petitioners vs. 1 The Union of India and others ..Respondents Mr.Naresh Thacker with Mr.Sushanth Murthy i/b Mr.M.R.Baya for petitioners. Mr.Girish Kulkarni with Mr.S.S.Deshmukh for respondent nos. 2 to 6. CORAM: V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED JJ 30th April ,2010 P.C. Perused petition. 1 Heard. 2 Rule. Returnable forthwith. 3 On a motion made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners leave to delete respondent no.1 from the array of the parties is granted since no relief is being claimed against respondent no.1. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 4 Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel, waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 6. The petition is finally heard by consent of parties. 5 Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Chairman, Administrative Tribunal, Daman and Diu at Daman is pending along with the stay application. 6 The aforesaid stay application is nothing but an application in the nature of prayer to dispense with the necessity of pre deposit of tax liability pending consideration of the appeal. 7 The respondent no.2 has passed an order on 20th March, 2010 on the note submitted by the Superintendent, wherein the appellant is directed to comply with a note of the Superintendent within one month from the date of the order which in turn calls upon the appellant/petitioner herein to deposit entire tax liability flowing from the 3 order impugned in the appeal. 8 The Appellate Authority is expected to know that when there is an application for stay, the authority is expected to consider the same before entertaining the appeal. The impugned order on the note submitted by the Superintendent, if allowed to remain, then the Appellate Authority cannot pass any other order contrary to its own order dated 20th March, 2010, with the result the stay application by the petitioner would get rejected without consideration. 9 In the above view of the matter, looking to the consensus between the parties, the impugned order dated 20th March, 2010 is liable to be quashed and set aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to consider the application for stay treating it as an application for dispensing with the necessity of pre deposit and to decide the same on its own merits with expeditious despatch at any 4 rate within 8 weeks from today. All rival contentions of both parties are kept open. Order accordingly. 10 In the result, petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. Mr. Kulkarni undertakes to communicate this order to the Appellate Authority. (K.K.TATED J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)