MC 2883/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr Narayan Dutta Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr AM Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr A Chowdhury, the lear ned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr R Tanti, the learned Standing counsel for the Inland Water Transport Department. This misc. application is filed by the applicant for vacation of the int erim order passed by this Court on 18.08.2010, which was renewed on 3.9.2010. T he learned counsel for the applicant drawing my attention to Article 226(3) of t he Constitution of India points out that as the application of the applicant for vacation of the ex parte interim order could not be disposed of by this Court w ithin the stipulated period of time under Article 226(3), the ex parte interim o rder is deemed to have been vacated. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the decision of this Court repor ted in 2010 6 GLT 127. In my opinion, there is force in the contention of the le arned counsel for the applicant. The requirement to dispose of the application f or vacation of the ex parte interim order is constitutional mandate, for which n o exception is made. In the result, the interim order dated 18.08.2010 which was renewed by t he order dated 3.09.2010 stand vacated. Misc. application stands disposed of.