IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 74 of 2009. Km. Meenakshi Agarwal and others. ……. Petitioners. Vs. Madan Mohan Sharma and another. ……Respondents. Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, holding brief for Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Date April 20, 2009. P.C: Hon’ble B. S. Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 366 of 2007) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been preferred to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2-1-2009 passed by the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar in Revenue Appeal No. 53/15 of 2008-09 (Annexure-1). Further prayer has also been made for staying the operation, execution and effect of order dated 5-12-2008 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Nagla, Tehsil Kichha, district Udham Singh Nagar in mutation Case No. 30/292 of 2007-08 of village Anandpur. The grievance of the petitioners are that the petitioners preferred an appeal against the order dated 5-12-2008 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Nagla and in appeal, prayer was made to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 5-12-2008 of the trial court, i.e. Naib Tehsildar. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the appellate court did not take any decision on the application for interim relief. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that notices were issued to the respondents vide order dated 2-1-2009 passed by the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar and the application for stay is still pending for disposal before the appellate court. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel of both the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the learned Collector Udham Singh Nagar, in whose court the matter (Revenue Appeal No. 52/15 of 2008-2009 is pending, shall decide the interim relief application on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months as well as the appeal itself after hearing both the parties of two months as well as the appeal itself after hearing both the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Costs easy. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (B. S. Verma, J.) RCP