IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5861 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S. TECHNOVA MEDISYSTEM, 44/135/1ST FLOOR, VYTTILA, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER - SUJITH S. 2. SUJITH, S/O. K.S.SURENDRAN, AGED 26, PARTNER, M/S.TECHNO MEDISYSTEM, 44/135/1ST FLOOR, VYTTILA, KOCHI. 3. JOHNY M.CHERIYAN, S/O. M.C.CHERIYAN, MANGALASSERIYIL HOUSE, AYAVANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.P.H.SHAJI (THRIKKAKARA) SMT.PRIYA SHENOY SRI.M.MANOJ KUMAR MALLIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAMALLUR, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), O/O. DY. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM. 4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, TRIPUNITHURA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 5861 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the 'condition' imposed by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P4 order granting interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rationale for having imposed the condition, obviously for the reason that the appellate authority was very much satisfied with the position highlighted from the part of the petitioner, as observed in Ext.P4, that there was a prima facie case. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits on the basis of the available materials on record, that the factual position clearly reveals that several incriminating circumstances were unearthed by the Intelligence Officer; pursuant to which the petitioner chose to compound the offence to avoid the prosecution proceedings. It was thereafter that the assessment proceedings were finalized, leading to Ext.P1 order, which in turn has been sought to be challenged by filing Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 application for stay. It was considering all these facts and figures that the appellate authority passed Ext.P4 order, intercepting the coercive proceedings on WP(C) No.5861/2010 2 condition that the petitioner satisfied 40% of the amount in dispute, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay. 4. Going through the facts and figures, it is very much obvious that the order passed by the appellate authority, i.e., Ext.P4 is not liable to be regarded as a 'non-speaking' order and on the other hand, it is revealed that there is proper application of mind. The only question to be considered is whether the imposition of the condition as '40%' is correct or not. Considering the sequence of events and also plight of the petitioner including the closing of the business, this Court finds that the above condition can be brought down to 25%, to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to satisfy 25% of the liability cast upon him vide Ext.P5, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay granted by the appellate authority vide Ext.P4. Since the time stipulated in Ext.P4 is already over, this Court permits the petitioner to satisfy the condition, as to deposit and to furnish security for the balance amount within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc