Reasoned stay orders require real discretion; a mechanical condition can justify High Court interference and reconsideration.

The appellate authority exercising power under section 34(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act must pass an independent, reasoned and objective order on a stay application. A stay order that imposes an inflexible condition without considering relevant factors and the prima facie merits of the appeal is a mechanical exercise of power and amounts to no real exercise of discretion in law. In such circumstances, the High Court may interfere under article 226 and direct reconsideration. The stay order was therefore treated as illegal and unauthorised, and it was quashed with a direction to reconsider the stay petition in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's stay order under section 34(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was vitiated for failure to exercise discretion in accordance with law, warranting interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India and a direction to reconsider the stay petition.

Analysis: The appellate authority exercising power under section 34(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was bound to pass an independent, reasoned and objective order on the stay application. A stay order that merely imposes an inflexible condition without showing application of mind to the relevant factors and the prima facie merits of the appeal amounts to a mechanical exercise of power. Such an order is treated as an abdication of discretion, or as the exercise of no discretion in the eye of law. In that situation, the Court may interfere under article 226 of the Constitution of India and require the authority to reconsider the stay request in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The stay order was illegal and unauthorised, and the Court was justified in quashing it and directing reconsideration of the stay petition in accordance with law.

---