AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 269 wordsC.S Dias, J
The writ petition is filed to direct the third respondent to consider and dispose of Exts P3 appeal and P4 stay petition expeditiously, and until such time to stay further recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 order.
The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext P1 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext P3 appeal and Ext P4 stay petition before the third respondent as early as on 26.5.2018. Despite the pendency of Exts P3 and P4, the third respondent has not passed any orders on the same. However, they are threatening to proceed with the implementation of Ext P1. Hence the writ petition.
Heard; Sri.Harisankar V Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
Having considered the fact that Exts P3 and P4 are pending consideration before the third respondent since 26.5.2018, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) The third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext P4 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
(ii) The third respondent shall state reasons, if the petitioner is required to deposit any amount as a condition precedent to grant an order of stay.
(iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext P4 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 shall be kept in abeyance.