IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8649 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW CHERIAN, S.J.HARDWARES, T.K.ROAD, KUMBANAD, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THIRUVALLA-689 101. 2. DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM - 678 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8649 of 2011-E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 interim order issued by the 2nd respondent appellate authority, in a stay petition filed along with Ext.P2 appeal, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. An interlocutory application seeking stay of recovery was filed along with the appeal. In Ext.P4 order the 2nd respondent had granted interim stay insisting upon the petitioner to make payment of 50% of the balance amount due and on furnishing adequate security for the remaining amount. 2. According to the petitioner the condition for payment of 50% was stipulated in a mechanical manner without appreciating any of the grounds raised in the appeal in its real perspective. None of the contentions raised in the appeal or those urged at the time of hearing, W.P(C) No.8649 of 2011-E 2 was not appreciated or considered by the appellate authority, is the contention. It is further contended that there is a fair chance of the appellate authority allowing the appeal and the condition for payment of 50% now insisted upon, is highly rigorous in nature and the same is causing onerous liability, which is difficult to be complied with. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4 it is evident that the main points contended were illustrated by the appellate authority. But without considering merits of such contentions or its prima facie sustainability, the appellate authority straight away passed an order observing that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for granting conditional stay. No reasoning is mentioned in the impugned order evaluating merits of the contentions raised nor there is any reason mentioned for non-acceptance of any such contention, after proper application of mind. 4. It is trite law by this time that the appellate authorities while granting interim relief is exercising a W.P(C) No.8649 of 2011-E 3 quasi judicial function and is expected to write reasoned orders while granting stay. Since the order is totally lacking non-consideration of the contentions on its merits, I am of the view that Ext.P4 order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. The matter ought to have been remitted back to the appellate authority for passing fresh orders. Considering the fact that the appeal is pending disposal, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations, I am of the view that the appeal can be directed to be disposed of by the appellate authority on an early basis. Till then stay can be granted against the recovery steps, on imposing condition which is less rigorous in nature. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two W.P(C) No.8649 of 2011-E 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time the appeal is disposed of, the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance recovery of the amounts covered under the assessment, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the amount due and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.8649 of 2011-E 5