IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7002 of 2011(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHEEK L, AKKAVILA, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM -691 010. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKERS CONTRACT), CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM- 691 013. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM- 691 009. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM- 691 013. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 7002 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 interim order of stay issued by the 2nd respondent, imposing condition for payment of 50% of the balance amount of tax due, after deducting Rs.2,24,140/- being TDS deducted and remitted, and for furnishing security for the balance amount in dispute. Ext.P1 order of assessment, finalised with respect to the year 2008-09, was challenged in Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent, accompanied by Ext.P3 stay petition. When recovery steps were initiated pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioner had approached this court in WP(C).No.37510/2010. In Ext.P5 judgment this court directed the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 stay petition and to pass orders thereon, and till then the recovery steps was stayed. Pursuant to the judgment the stay petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the condition in Ext.P6 for payment of 50% was incorporated in a mechanical WP(C).7002/2011 2 manner without application of mind. It is contended that none of the grounds raised in the appeal nor any grounds urged at the time of hearing was considered on merits. It is also contended that the condition imposed will work out in causing onerous liability on the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority had failed in mentioning any reason for imposition of such rigorous condition, pending disposal of the appeal. 3. On a perusal of the impugned order it is revealed that the appellate authority had narrated all the contentions raised at the time of hearing. But, without being there any consideration of merits of such contentions, it was observed in a cryptic manner that the appellant had made out a case for granting conditional stay. Further, without mentioning any specific reason, the appellate authority insisted upon a condition for payment of 50%. 4. It is trite law by this time that the appellate authorities are expected to write reasoned orders while disposing stay petitions. A prima facie satisfaction regarding merits of the contentions need be recorded in the order. Proper application of WP(C).7002/2011 3 mind and proper advertence and appreciation of the contentions should be reflected in the orders to be issued. Further,the order should also reflect reasons for imposition of conditions for granting stay, eventhough it is a matter to a great extent coming within the discretion of the appellate authority. In the case at hand the impugned order is lacking from any of the ingredients mentioned above. Hence I am of the considered view that the order in question is unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P6 order is hereby quashed. The appellate authority is directed to pass fresh orders after affording further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also left open to the appellate authority to consider the appeal itself and to dispose of the same on merits. 6. Till such time the appellate authority passes orders in accordance with the directions contained above, further steps of recovery shall be kept in abeyance. 7. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the appellate authority. Pmn/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE WP(C).7002/2011 4 pmn/