Being aggrieved of Ext. P1 order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has already preferred Ext. P2 appeal along with Ext. P3 petition to condone delay and Ext. P4 petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, the third respondent is proceeding with coercive steps, as borne by Ext.P5, which hence is sought to be intercepted.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on Exts. P3 and P4 (petition to condone the delay and petition for stay respectively), in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext. P5 shall be kept in abeyance till such time.
W.P.(C) No. 33203 of 2014 : 2 :
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the merit of the case. The challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext. P1 referring to period of limitation is left open.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd