MC 2501/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A C UPADHYAY Heard Mr. R K Borah, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant-respon dent No.3. Also heard Mr. U J Saikia, learned counsel, appearing for the petitio ner-respondent. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for vacation of the stay order passed by this Court, on 22.07.2011. This Court vide order, dated 22.07.20 11 in WP(C) No.3545/2011, after having considering the matter in it s entirety, passed the interim order as follows: Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out, prima facie, a ca se for interim order. Accordingly, though interview may take place in terms of t he advertisement dated 01.07.2011, no appointment shall be made to the post of A ssistant Professor, in the subjects, namely, Education, Economics, English and P olitical Science. List on 05.09.2011 Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that since the prayer for vacation of stay made in terms of Article 226(3) of the Constitu tion of India, by the petitioner was not considered by this Court within a perio d of 2(two) weeks from the date of filing this application, the order, dated 22. 07.2011, shall automatically stands vacated by operation of the provisions of Ar ticle 226(3) of the Constitution of India. In support of his argument Mr. Roruah has relied on the decision of this Court, reported in 2003(1) GLT 346 (R.D. Srivastava Vs Suren Panging) wherein, a Division Bench of this Court held that if the conditions envisaged in the Arti cle 226(3) of the Constitution of India are fulfilled, the interim stay order gr anted by this Court shall automatically stands vacated after expiry of the time limit. The relevant extract of the decision reads as follows: 4. Under Article 226(3) of the constitution any party against whom an interim o rder, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made, with out furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in suppor t of the plea for such interim order and giving such party an opportunity of bei ng heard, can move an application to the High Court for vacation of such order. When such an application is moved a copy of the same has to be served on the par ty who has obtained the order of stay or injunction or on the counsel of such pa rty and that the matter has to be heard within a period of two weeks from the da te on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such applicatio n is so furnished, whichever is earlier. When the steps are taken by moving an a pplication under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacating the stay order, if the application is not disposed of within two weeks, it is the mandate of la w that the interim order so passed shall stand vacated automatically. The effect of vacation would be as if there is no order of stay in existence passed by the Court, after expiry of two weeks. Mr. Borah has also relied upon the decision of this Court, reported in 2 010(3) GLT 127 (Axis Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anupam Acharjee and Ors.), which rea ds as follows: Whatever may be the reason, fact remains the application for vacating the inter im order of this Court dated 04.12.2009 in absence of the respondent creditor ba nk, petitioners herein could not be disposed of within the stipulated period as prescribed by the Constitution makers and due non-disposal of the said applicati on within the stipulated period either for the fault of the Court or for the par ties, the ex parte and interim order dated 04.12.2009 passed by this Court in CM Application No.392 of 2009 stood automatically vacated after completion of two weeks from the date of receipt of the application for vacating the interim order by the Registry of this Court or from the date on which the copy of such applic ation is so furnished to the party in whose favour such order is made whichever is later and it is declared as such. Apparently, in this case, prayer for vacation/modification of the stay o rder was not taken by this Court within 2(two) weeks from the date of its filing . Accordingly, by operation of the provisions of Article 226(3) of the Constitut ion of India, interim stay granted by this Court stands automatically vacated by operation of law. In view of the above, considering the matter in its entirety, the interi m order, dated 22.07.2011 passed in WP(C) No.3345/2011, shall stands vacated. Misc Case stands disposed of.