THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25736 of 2009 ORDER: Respondent No.1 initiated arbitration proceedings against the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad West Division, respondent No.2 herein, in respect of allotment of house sites. The same was taken up as A.R.C.No.10 of 2006. Through his order, dated 27.12.2007, respondent No.2 passed an award holding that respondent No.1 is eligible to be allotted house sites in Phase-I. The petitioner herein was directed to take a decision for allotment of house sites and for transfer thereof. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, respondent No.3 herein. An application for stay was also filed. An ex parte order of stay was passed on 16.03.2009 and the matter was directed to be listed on 27.04.2009. The petitioner states that re-allotment of cases to be heard by the Tribunal was done subsequent to 16.03.2009 and on 27.04.2009, the appearance of the parties was taken note of by a subsequent set of Presiding Officer and Members. The grievance of the petitioner is that probably, the proceedings, dated 27.04.2009, were manipulated at a subsequent stage depicting as though the stay granted earlier was for a limited period and that the stay is not being extended. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Though the matter was adjourned twice to enable the learned counsel for respondent No.1 to appear, he did not turn-up. The limited grievance of the petitioner is about the state of affairs to continue during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.3. On the application filed by it, respondent No.3 granted an order of stay on 16.03.2009. It was not restricted to any period. Therefore, it would continue till it is vacated or till the disposal of the appeal. The allegation of the petitioner that the docket proceedings, dated 27.04.2009 were manipulated, in such a way, as to restrict the stay up to a period cannot be brushed aside. Be that as it may, once an appellate authority has granted stay, it needs to be extended to remain in force unless it is vacated on merits. The record does not disclose that any order was passed by the Tribunal contrary to the view expressed by respondent No.2. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the award, dated 27.12.2007, passed by respondent No.2 shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal presented by the petitioner before respondent No.3. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 22.04.2010. kdl