IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16197 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.ASIAN PAINTS LTD,NEAR POWER HOUSE, VYTILLA,ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGIONAL COMMERCIAL EXECUTIVE MR.SHAILESH.K. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISIONER(APPEALS),COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16197 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P4 interim order passed by the 2nd respondent whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 60% of the disputed liability and to furnish sufficient security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the statutory appeals. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got very valid contentions as projected in the grounds of appeal, which however have not been properly appreciated by the appellate authority while passing interim order and hence that Ext.P4 is liable to be interfered. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the appellate authority has very much adverted to the pleadings and citations pointed out from the part of the petitioner. The appellate authority has also noted the citation mentioned from the part of the department. However, which one will prevail, is not discernible from the impugned order. After referring to all the precedents as above, the 2nd respondent/appellate authority observed that the petitioner/appellant had established a 'prima facie' case 2 WP(C) No. 16197/2010 and accordingly granting the interim order. There is nothing on record to show the application of mind particularly as to the extent and sustainability of the condition. As such, this Court finds it difficult to hold that Ext.P4 is a 'speaking order'. 5. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders in Ext.P2 series appeals, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, the petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay on satisfying 1/3rd of the disputed liability and furnishes security for the balance amount within 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