Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 17.2.2012, in the stay petition filed by the petitioner, in F.No.Addl.CIT/Coy.R.I/Stay of Demand/2011-12, relating to the appeals filed by the petitioner, pending on the file of the third respondent, for the assessment years 200506, 2006-07 and 2008-09. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the impugned order had been passed by the first respondent directing the petitioner to pay eleven crores, in installments of two crores per month. 4. It had also been stated that the stay petition would be rejected, if nothing substantial is heard from the petitioner, by 22.2.2012. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the first respondent has no power or authority to pass such an order compelling the petitioner to pay the amount of eleven crores, in installments. She should have either rejected the stay petition, filed by the petitioner, on merits, or an order of stay ought to have been granted on certain conditions. Therefore, he had prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 17.2.2012, and to direct the first respondent to hear the stay petition and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had submitted that the total arrears of income tax liable to be paid by the petitioner is about sixty seven crores, for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09. Therefore, the petitioner had been asked to pay eleven crores, in installments, as per the order, dated 17.2.2012. Such an order is reasonable, in view of the huge arrears of income tax payable by the petitioner. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that there is no indication in the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 17.2.2012, that the stay petition filed by the petitioner, in F.No.Addl.CIT/Coy.R.I/Stay of Demand/2011-12, in the appeals filed before the third respondent, had been heard and decided, on merits. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the representatives of the petitioner had appeared before the first respondent and had admitted that the amount of about sixty seven crores is payable by the petitioner, as claimed by the respondent Department. 8. Further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had not been in a position to show that the representatives of the petitioner had agreed to furnish a scheme for payment. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 17.2.2012, is set aside. The first respondent is directed to hear the stay petition filed in the appeals preferred by the petitioner, before the third respondent, for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall not proceed against the petitioner to recover the income tax arrears said to be payable by the petitioner, as per the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, until appropriate orders are passed by the first respondent, in the stay petition filed by the petitioner, as stated above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No. 1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.