1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R (1) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7081/2005 DILIP KUMAR GUPTA V. STATE & ANOTHER. (2) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7151/2005 BHOORA RAM CHOUDHARY V. STATE & ANOTHER. (3) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7188/2005 BABU LAL CHOUDHARY V. STATE & ANOTHER. (4) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7252/2005 MUKESH CHAND NAHATA V. STATE & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER ::: 01-05-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. M.S.Singhvi, for Petitioner (s). Mr.V.K.Agrawal for Respondents. BY THE COURT: The matter was heard to some length and during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that similar writ petitions, involving the same questions, were dismissed vide 2 judgment dated 26.11.2006 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.9839/2005 by Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. In view of the above, the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents is that these writ petitions cannot be maintained, in view of the availability of the alternative remedy and dismissal of the similar writ petitions on that count earlier. The writ petitions herein have not been admitted. However, it is informed that in all these writ petitions, an interim order for maintaining status quo was passed and the said interim order has been continuing. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, urged that the order in Writ Petition No.9893/2005 was passed on 29.11.2006 and the present writ petitions are pending consideration with continuance of the interim even thereafter. Thus, even if the petitioners are relegated for maintaining an appeal, not only a direction be given to the Appellate Authority to decide their appeal on merit, but a further liberty was given to challenge the order of the Government. It is lastly urged that looking to the continuance of the interim order while a direction is given to 3 maintain the appeal, the interim order already existing in favour of the petitioner be continued. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the stay order passed in this writ petition should not be continued. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Since the similar writ petition was dismissed on the ground of existence of alternatives remedy of appeal, these writ petitions are also decided in the light of the order passed by this Court in earlier writ petitions dated 29.11.2006. However, looking to the fact that despite of dismissal of other writ petitions vide order dated 29.11.2006, not only these writ petitions remain pending for consideration, but, even interim order was continued by the Court thus, it would be proper to direct the respondents that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of fifteen days from today, same would be heard and decided on its merit within a period of three months thereafter and 4 looking to the fact that interim order in favour of the petitioner is continuing, for a period of more than two years and four months, let the interim order passed by this Court for maintaining the status quo by the parties be remain in operation for another period in which appeal would be decided by the respondents. It is made clear that if no appeal is preferred within a period of fifteen days, the interim order passed by this Court will become inoperative. It is prayed by the counsel for the respondent that it should be made clear that continuance of stay may not influence the appellate authority. With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. However, it is made clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the order passed by the Government and it is further clarified that continuance of the interim order, in these cases, would not influence the appellate authority in any manner. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd