Being aggrieved of Exts.P1/P1(a) orders imposing penalty, the petitioner has moved the revisionary authority vide Exts.P2/ P2(a) revisions. After considering Exts.P3/P3(a) petitions for stay, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order, granting an interim stay subject to satisfaction of 60% of the disputed liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the revision. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.
3. As observed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner did not file any objection in response to the notice issued, nor did he appear for personal hearing.
4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the materials on record, it is seen that the contention raised by the petitioner has been considered by the Appellate Authority while passing Ext.P4 order, which is not liable to be branded as an W.P.(C) No.33476 of 2014 2 arbitrary order or an order passed without any application of mind. The lapses on the part of the petitioner have been specifically referred to and it is after such an exercise, that the condition has been imposed. However, taking note of the specific grounds raised by the petitioner and also the extent of liability sought to be satisfied, this Court finds that the condition, as it now stands, can be scaled down to 30%. It is ordered accordingly. In view of the fact that, the time stipulated in Ext.P4 is already over, the petitioner is granted further period of 'two weeks' to satisfy the condition, upon which the petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 2nd respondent, for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp