B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) Although the petitioner has challenged two orders of Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad dated 18-2-1991 and 10-4-1991 in this writ petition, we are confining this writ petition only to the order dated 10-4-1991.
(2.) The appellant had filed eight appeals and had filed stay petitions in all the eight of them. Stay petition in two appeals were disposed of by order dated 18-2-1991 and the stay petitions in the remaining six appeals were disposed of by order dated 10-4-1991. A single writ petition against both the said orders is not maintainable. It is for this reason that we are confining this writ petition only to the order dated 10-4-1991.
(3.) We have perused the impugned order. In our opinion, it does not really come to grip with the facts of the case relevant at this stage. The Appellate Collector says in the first instance that he has perused the judgments cited by the appellant. He then refers to two judgments of the Supreme Court and says that prima facie case, balance of convenience and financial hardship by themselves are not sufficient for grant of stay and that the authorities should take into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances. Having said so, he says that the facts of this case, examined on the said test, failed to qualify for stay and dismissed the said petition. In our opinion the order of the appellate authority is superficial.;