JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P1 to P3 orders issued by the 3rd respondent, disposing the interim applications for stay filed along with statutory appeals, which were instituted against assessment orders finalised with respect to the years 2006-06, 2006-07 and 2009-10. One of the contention raised by the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not an authority empowered to deal with the appeals in question. It is also contended that the condition imposed through Exts. P1 to P3 orders are highly rigorous and such conditions are imposed in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without proper advertence to the grounds raised in the appeals. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is pointed out that, by virtue of a notification issued, the 3rd respondent has been conferred with powers to deal with the appeals with certain peculiar limits and therefore the contention regarding competence of the 3rd respondent deserves no merit. Considering sustainability of the conditions imposed, it may not be justified on the part of this court to interfere with, since such conditions are imposed in exercise of discretionary powers vested on the appellate authority. However, on a perusal of Exts. P1 to P3, I am not in agreement with the contentions of the petitioner that such orders are issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind. It is evident that the main ground raised in the appeal are illustrated in the order and it is evident that the appellate authority had considered sustainability of such grounds, on a prima facie basis. However, it is evident that the appellate authority has not mentioned any specific reasoning for imposition of conditions, to the extent of 50% in Exts. P1 and P2 and 60% in Ext. P3 order. In a Division Bench decision of this Court in Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer ( 2008 (3) KLT 805 ) it was held that the appellate authorities are expected to mention specific reasoning with respect to imposition of conditions and also to mention reasoning as to why the appellants are not entitled for a full stay. Considering the para meters described under the above said decision, I am of the view that imposition of the condition without mentioning any specific reason is unsustainable in the eye of law. Considering the para meters described under the above said decision, I am of the view that imposition of the condition without mentioning any specific reason is unsustainable in the eye of law. When the writ petition came up for admission, recovery steps were stayed insisting upon the petitioner for payment of 25% of the amount due. It is reported that the conditions stipulated had already been complied with. Under such circumstances, ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued for an early disposal of the appeal and till then to restrain the recovery steps for realising the balance amount. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exts. P13, P14 and P15 appeals after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time the appeals are disposed of as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under the impugned assessments (Exts. P10 to P12) shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner had already remitted 25% of the amounts as directed by this Court, and further on the petitioner furnishing Security Bond for the balance amount, without sureties, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.