NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.


The petitioner has suffered regular orders of assessment. The petitioner has preferred appeals and pending appeals, he sought order of stay. The first respondent declined to grant the stay asked for and has directed the payment of the disputed amounts in ten monthly instalments. These orders are being challenged in the present writ petitions. I am told that security in the shape of immovable properties for the entirety of the disputed amounts has been furnished by the petitioner. It is not claimed that the security furnished is not acceptable and adequate. After adverting to the concerned statutory provisions, the first respondent says that absolute stay cannot be granted and considering the huge amount of arrears, payment of disputed amounts in instalments could be permitted. These reasonings ignore the principles enunciated by this Court on the question of stay. That there was no proper exercise of discretion on the question of grant of stay is patent from the orders. I find that the interest of Revenue stands amply safeguarded by the security in the shape of immovable properties furnished as stated above. Passing of such oppressive orders has been deprecated by this Court. Yet, I find such orders are being passed by the authorities like the first respondent and it does not speak well of the department to ignore pronouncements of this Court and go on passing orders which drive parties to come to this Court seeking redressal and relief in writ powers. I feel obliged to interfere in writ jurisdiction and accordingly, these three writ petitions are allowed, the orders of the first respondent are quashed and recovery of the d

isputed amounts shall not be prosecuted during the pendency of the appeals before the first respondent. It is upto the first respondent to dispose of the appeals with expedition. No costs.