IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 596 of 2010(Y) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- D.SURESHKUMAR, VADASSERIL FINANCIERS, MUTHUKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHENGANNUR. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KARTHIKAPPALLY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) No. 621 0F 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)Nos. 596 & 621 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T Both these Writ Petitions, preferred by the very same petitioner, involving common question of law as to the sustainability of the condition imposed by the Appellate authority while granting the interim orders in the appeals preferred against the penalty orders are taken up and considered together. 2. The sequence of events shows that, aggrieved of the assessment orders passed by the departmental authorities , the petitioner had approached this Court by filing two Writ Petitions, viz., W.P(C) Nos. 23464 of 2009 and 24753 of 2009, leading to separate judgments passed on 17th and 27th August 2009 respectively, which are produced and marked as Exts. P5 in both the cases. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext. P5 verdict, the Appellate authority considered the applications for W.P.(C)Nos. 596 & 621 OF 2010 2 stay and passed Ext. P6 orders (in both the Writ Petitions), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 1/3rd of the penalty amount (in W.P.(C) No. 621 of 2010) and a sum of Rs.One lakh ( in W.P.(C) No. 596 of 2010), the sustainability of which is under challenge in these Writ Petitions. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that imposition of the condition as above, is not correct or sustainable and that, it is even beyond the limit prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Statute, particularly under Sections 18C and 18D of the Kerala Money Lenders' Act. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the extent of liability imposed by way of condition while granting the interim order, is perfectly within the four walls of the law and it has never exceeded the limits prescribed under the Statute, particularly in view of the fact that the issue involved pertains to a “block of five years” and not confined to a particular year. Considering the facts and circumstances, and also on going through the relevant provisions of the statute, this Court does W.P.(C)Nos. 596 & 621 OF 2010 3 not find any illegality or impropriety in having passed Ext. P6 order by the appellate authority, mulcting the liability upon the petitioner to satisfy a portion of the disputed liability, so as to avail the fruits of the interim order of stay. However, considering the fact that the time stipulated by the appellate authority in the impugned orders has already expired, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant a further period of two weeks for enabling the petitioner to deposit the said amount and to furnish security for the balance amount, as ordered by the appellate authority. Subject to the above modification, Ext.P6 orders in the above Writ Petitions are left intact and the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk