M.THAJUDEEN v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

W.P.(C).27626/09-W2penalty was computed. The attack against Ext.P5 order is that itis a non-speaking order and is issued without application ofmind. It is contended that the appellate authority had failed inadverting to the grounds raised in the appeal and the conditionof 50% payment was imposed in a quite mechanical manner.

On a perusal of Ext.P5 it is noticed that the appellateauthority has not at all gone into the contentions of theappellant. After briefly narrating the grounds raised in theappeal the authority had proceeded to issue the order imposingpayment of 50% of the penalty as a pre-condition, in amechanical manner. It is settled law through various precedentsof this court and the hon'ble apex court that, while disposing theinterlocutory applications, the statutory appellate authority arebound to issue speaking orders on proper application of mind, with due advertence to the contentions raised in the appeal. Theinterim orders should reflect proper application of mind andadvertence to the grounds raised in the appeal. Viewed in theabove angle, Ext.P5 order cannot be termed as one sustainablein the eye of law.

Therefore I am inclined to quash Ext.P5 and I do so. Considering the contentions raised in the appeal, I am of theview that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2ndrespondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal as early W.P.(C).27626/09-W3as possible.

The petitioner further contends that the 3rdrespondent had now initiated steps to finalise the assessmentbased on the order imposing penalty which is under challenge inthe appeal. According to the petitioner if the assessment isfinalised before disposal of the appeal, that will cause severeprejudice.

Under the above circumstances the writ petition isdisposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and passorders on Ext.P3 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearingto the petitioner as early as possible at any rate within a periodof 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance realisation ofthe amount covered under Ext.P2 order till the appeal isdisposed of as directed above, on condition of the petitionerremitting an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only)within a period of 3 weeks from today. There will be a furtherdirection to the 3rd respondent to keep in abeyance finalisation ofthe assessment based on Ext.P2 order till Ext.P3 is disposed ofby 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.okb