IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10316 of 2010(L)
1. SRI.C.P.ABOOTY, VEE TEE TRADERS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
3. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), THALASSERY.
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :26/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 10316 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 26th March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenging Ext.P1 assesment order dated 07.03.2009, the
petitioner has filed Ext. P2 appeal along with a petition for stay.
After considering the merits involved, the second
respondent/appellate authority dismissed the stay petition vide
Ext. P3 order dated 08.03.2010 holding that no prima facie case
was established for conditional stay by the appellant therein.
Since the appeal is kept pending and final orders are yet to be
passed, it is stated that the petitioner is constrained to face the
consequential proceedings by way of revenue recovery as borne
by Exts. P4 and P4(a), without any alternate remedy, which,
hence, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court
finds that the course pursued by the second respondent/appellate
authority is not correct or proper, in so far as the appeal
preferred against the assessment orders is kept in tact,
W.P.(C) No. 10316 OF 2010
2
however dismissing the stay petition holding that there was no
prima facie case, thus virtually defeating the rights and
liberties of the petitioner/appellant to pursue further steps in
accordance with law, for which appropriate orders are to be
passed in the appeal as well.
4. In the above circumstances, the second respondent is
directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P2
appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible at any
rate within ‘six weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment.
5. It is made clear that all further proceedings pursuant
to Exts.P4 and P4(a) shall be kept in abeyance on condition that
the petitioner satisfies 50% of the amount shown in Ext.P1
order, within a period of two weeks.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk