JUDGMENT Challenge is against Ext. P3 interim order issued by the appellate authority. While disposing the stay petition filed along with a statutory appeal, the appellate authority found that a prima facie case has been established for granting conditional stay. The interim stay was granted till the disposal of the appeal, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 25% of the balance amount due and on furnishing adequate security for the remaining amount. Even though it is contended that the conditions was stipulated without proper application of mind and without proper advertence of the grounds raised in the appeal, I am of the view that on perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the appellate authority had illustrated all the contentions. After considering such contentions, the appellate authority observed that a prima facie case for granting conditional stay is made out. It is not proper to contend that there should have been meticulous analysis of merits of all the grounds raised, even at the time of passing interim orders. It is within the discretion of the appellate authority to impose conditions while passing interim orders. Since the conditions imposed is only for payment of 25% of the amount, I am not impressed with the contentions raised to the effect that the condition imposed is highly rigorous or onerous to be complied with. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226, to interfere with the order. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks extension of time for compliance of the conditions stipulated. If the petitioner complies with the conditions within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered as proper compliance of the interim orders. Needless to say that the appellate authority shall take earnest efforts to dispose of the appeal on an early basis.