Reasoned stay orders are required before recovery can proceed, and arbitrary refusal may justify writ intervention.

A non-speaking rejection of stay petitions was set aside because it disclosed no reasons and no application of mind to the grounds raised in the appeals. An order refusing stay must show consideration of the relevant contentions and a lawful exercise of discretion; if the statutory authority acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, writ intervention under Article 226 is available. Instead of remanding the stay request, the appeals were directed to be disposed of within a fixed time and recovery was stayed until that disposal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's rejection of the stay petitions by a non-speaking order was liable to be set aside, and whether consequential directions could be issued regarding disposal of the appeals and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The rejection of the stay petitions contained no reasons and did not show application of mind to the grounds raised in the appeals. An order declining stay must reflect consideration of the relevant contentions and the exercise of discretion in accordance with law. Where the statutory authority acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, the writ court may intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances of the case, instead of remanding the stay request for fresh consideration, the appeals were directed to be disposed of within a fixed time and recovery was stayed until such disposal.

Conclusion: The rejection of stay was set aside, a time-bound direction for disposal of the appeals was issued, and recovery proceedings remained stayed until the appeals were decided.

---