P RAGHUNANDANAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the provision is explicit in the Constitution, it is seldom resorted to by parties aggrieved by interim ex parte orders passed by this Court in writ petitions. When it was pointed, in this Writ Appeal, to the counsel for the appellant that he could nave availed himself of the benefit of the provision contained in Art.226(3) instead of challenging the interim order learned counsel has opted to do so. However, the Writ . Appeal has to be disposed of by a judgment.

(2.) Appellant was the third respondent in an Original Petition filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the KSRTC') under Art.226 of the Constitution in challenge of a judgment passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the STAT') on a Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed along with the said Original Petition. Learned single Judge, before whom the Original Petition came up for admission, granted an interim order staying the operation of the judgment of the STAT. This happened on 18-1-1995. Notice was ordered to the third respondent in the Original Petition, who is the appellant here. He entered appearance and submitted a petition on 24-2-1995 praying for vacating the stay order dated 18-1-1995. Notice of the said petition was furnished to the standing counsel for the KSRTC as well as the Government Pleader. As the ex parte interim order was not vacated, this appeal was filed by the appellant in challenge of the ex parte interim order. When it was taken up for admission, we heard both sides. We felt that it was unnecessary for us to deal with this appeal as the ex parte interim order would have stood vacated on the expiry of two weeks from 24-2-1995.

(3.) The factual matrix, as stated above, is not in dispute. Hence we need only to show how the ex parte interim order stood vacated. Art.226(3) of the Constitution reads thus: