IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24747 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HABEEBUL RAHIMAN, HINDUSTAN PLASTICS, PARAPPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PATTAMBI. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 24747 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent and the same is still pending. But after considering the I.A. for stay, the second respondent passed Ext.P4 order holding that a prima facie case had been established by the petitioner; however directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount due for the year 2007-08 and to furnish security for the balance amount, for availing the benefit of interim stay; which in turn is sought to be intercepted in the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Obviously, Ext.P4 order passed by the second respondent does not reflect anything other than the case projected by the petitioner. In other words, absolutely no reason has been stated to justify the condition imposed, mulcting the liability on the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the amount allegedly due from the petitioner. The law is now well settled in view of the decision in Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer [2008 (3) KLT 805] that the order to be passed in such WPC NO.24747/2009 2 circumstance, shall very much contain reasons as well. 4. In the above circumstances, Ext.P4 order is set aside. The second respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 petition for stay and to pass a ‘speaking order’ after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done 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, till such time, all further proceedings by way of coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc