JUDGMENT B. N. PATNAIK, J. - The petitioner, who was the managing partner of Mis. Charu Automobiles at Sulthan Batheri, has challenged the order passed by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax - (exhibit P7) dated September 14, 1994. It is contended that although the business was closed in 1993, he received a notice under section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act issued by the third respondent calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 with a threat to attach the movable properties of the petitioner, if he fails to pay the said amount. It is contended by the petitioner that no such amount is due from him and the revenue recovery proceedings are liable to be quashed. The order imposing penalty was passed without hearing the petitioner or any of the partners. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order imposing penalty before the appellate authority (1st respondent) and also filed a petition for stay of recovery proceedings. After hearing the advocate for the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order (exhibit P7). The petitioner's grievance is that exhibit P7 was passed mechanically without application of mind. The first respondent did not take into consideration the prima facie arguable case which was presented before him. The same is unjust and arbitrary. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents not to collect the amount as directed in exhibit P7. Heard counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the respondents. It appears from exhibit P7 that after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and considering the merits of the contentions and perusal of the records, the first respondent passed the impugned order, which is as follows : "Pending disposal of the revision petitions an interim stay is granted for the payment of the above penalty amounts until the revision petitions are disposed of on the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 for 1989-90 and Rs. 10,000 for 1990-91 on or before October 20, 1994 and a further sum of Rs. 8,000 for 1991-92 and Rs. 20,000 for 1989-90 and Rs. 10,000 for 1990-91 on or before October 20, 1994 and a further sum of Rs. 8,000 for 1991-92 and Rs. 10,000 for 1992-93 on or before November 15, 1994 and furnish adequate security for the balance amounts in respect of each of the above 4 years on or before November 15, 1994 before the assessing authority concerned." He has directed to pay the amounts by different instalments spread over a period of two months. It does not appear that the impugned order (exhibit P7) was passed arbitrarily without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the first respondent has the jurisdiction under the Act to pass such an order. Merely because he has passed a conditional order of stay, it does not follow that he exercised his jurisdiction illegally or arbitrarily. If he has acted within the limits of his jurisdiction and the impugned order is not shown to be an arbitrary one, it is not proper for this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, exhibit P7 is an interlocutory order passed in exercise of the powers conferred on first respondent by the statute. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with any interlocutory orders passed by a subordinate Tribunal, if it is neither perverse nor illegal. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the said interlocutory order. For the reasons stated above, I find that there is no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.