Pursuant to a surprise inspection conducted in the premises of the petitioner, who is running a resort at Munnar as borne by Ext.P1, penalty order was imposed upon the petitioner by the 1st respondent vide Ext.P2. This made the petitioner to prefer appeal as per Ext.P3 along with Ext.P4 petition for stay. After considering the I.A for stay, Ext.P6 order came to be passed by the 2nd respondent granting interim stay, subject to satisfaction of the 30% of the disputed liability by the petitioner, which 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 appearing for the respondents.
3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the nature and extent of dispute raised by the petitioner has necessarily to be adjudicated with reference to relevant records and since the matter is pending consideration in appeal, this Court does not require to probe into the said aspect. The order W.P.C. No. 32087 of 2014 -2-
passed by the appellate authority vide Ext.P6 has to be read and understood in the light of the proceedings beginning from Ext.P1 inspection report and this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the said order. However, considering the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is granted a further period of 'two weeks' to satisfy the condition imposed as per Ext.P6. On satisfying the condition as above, the petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of appeal.
The second respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders in appeal, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'four months' form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-