JUDGMENT N. DHINAKAR, J. This original petition is filed challenging exhibit P5 order directing the petitioner to deposit 60 per cent of the penalty amount imposed upon him in cash and furnish security for the balance amount in any one of the forms stipulated in rule 6 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules pending disposal of a revision petition filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed in exhibit P5 by the revisional authority on the said petition is more mechanical in nature and that he has not applied his mind and that there was no subjective satisfaction when he directed payment of 60 per cent of the penalty amount. I have perused the order. 2. It is seen that the revisional authority, after extracting the reasons given by the petitioner, has stated that "the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for stay". In my view the authority having held that there is a prima facie case made out for stay, need not have directed the petitioner to pay 60 per cent of the tax. Counsel for the petitioner contends that various relevant aspects which arise for consideration have not been kept in mind in passing exhibit P5 order and therefore the said order does not satisfy the requirements of a valid order as laid by a Division Bench of this Court in Alok Spices v. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax and Agricultural Income-tax [1988] 71 STC 347. A learned single Judge of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Inter-State Investigation Cell) reported in [1994] 95 STC 211, after referring to several decisions on this point, held that the authority dealing with an application for stay of this nature must bear in mind the principles laid down time and again by this Court and any failure to keep the guidelines in mind while exercising the discretion will amount to non-exercise of the discretion in the eye of law and is liable to be interfered with under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Though the court will not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the authorities, it has to be seen whether the said discretion was properly exercised by the the authority while passing such orders. 3. Though the court will not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the authorities, it has to be seen whether the said discretion was properly exercised by the the authority while passing such orders. As I have stated earlier, the revisional authority having stated that the petitioner has made out a case for stay, should not have mechanically directed the petitioner to deposit 60 per cent of the penalty. This could show that the order came to be passed in a mechanical manner without any proper exercise of discretion. 4. In my view the order passed by the revisional authority has to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. The revisional authority will dispose of the revision petition a expeditiously a possible and in any event within 16 weeks from today and in the meanwhile there will be a stay of the collection of the penalty from the petitioner. This original petition is disposed of with the above directions. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.