JUDGMENT K. T. THOMAS, AG. C.J. All these writ appeals can be disposed of together as the question involved in all of them is the same. Appellants are cashew exporters. When the revenue intelligence officials inspected the factories of these appellants, stock of raw cashewnuts was noticed by them and they were required to produce the accounts by the intelligence officer. But they failed to produce the accounts and therefore penalty has been imposed on them. The orders imposing penalty have been challenged in revisions before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kollam (second respondent). Appellants moved for stay of recovery of the penalty amount. But second respondent, having found that the appellants have a prima facie case, directed them to pay 50 per cent of the penalty amount during the pendency of the revisions. Those orders have been challenged by the respective exporter in the original petitions filed under article 226 of the Constitution. Learned single Judge declined to interfere on the ground that the impugned orders are interlocutory in nature and it is not possible to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction as against such orders. Shri P. K. Kurian, Senior Counsel, who is instructed in the matter, contended that when the authority found that there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellants, it was not a proper exercise in directing that 50 per cent of the penalty amount should be deposited. Learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Alok Spices v. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Sales Tax and Income-tax [1988] 71 STC 347 in which a similar order has been passed by an appellate authority on a stay petition moved. The Division Bench [K. S. Paripoornan, J. (as he then was) and K. G. Balakrishnan, J.] pointed out that such mechanical order without applying mind should not have been passed and such orders were deprecated. Shri T. Karunakaran Nambiar, Additional Advocate-General, for Taxes, contended that the ratio laid down in the said decision is quite distinguishable here because the impugned orders are not stereotyped or mechanical. But the authorities have considered and reached a conclusion that there is prima facie case. True the impugned orders herein cannot be treated on a par with the order mentioned in the aforesaid decision. But the authorities have considered and reached a conclusion that there is prima facie case. True the impugned orders herein cannot be treated on a par with the order mentioned in the aforesaid decision. Nevertheless, once the authority found that there is prima facie case in favour of the appellants, the authorities should have considered whether the penalty should remain in abeyance in view of the prima facie case made out by them. It was then suggested by Shri T. Karunakaran Nambiar, Additional Advocate-General, for Taxes, that the revisions can be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and a direction to the second respondent in this context to that effect would be useful. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that all these writ appeals can be disposed of by directing the second respondent (revisional authority) to dispose of all the revision petitions (Nos. 118, 119, 123, 124 and 125 of 1995 pending before the second respondent) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We direct that orders impugned before the revisional authorities will remain in abeyance until the disposal of those revisions. Writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. Writ appeals disposed of accordingly.