2018 (5) TMI 1330 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Conditional order of stay – claim of petitioner is that the reason for condition imposed is not stated by 2nd respondent – Held that: – In Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit the amounts as a condition for the grant of stay – This Court has held in Archana Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer [2014 (5) TMI 1024 – KERALA HIGH COURT] that an authority considering a stay petition is bound to give reasons even while granting conditional stay – the 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on the stay application preferred by the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner – petition disposed off. – W.P.(C).No.15981 Of 2018 Dated:
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
round that the 2nd respondent had not exercised his discretion validly while passing the said order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:- (i) In Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit the amounts as a condition for the grant of stay. This Court has held in Archana Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer – 2014 (2) KLT 715 that an authority considering a stay petition is bound to give reasons even while granting conditional stay. (ii) Accordingly, I
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =