MC 157/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appli cant (State). Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewall, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the O.P.(writ petitioner). 2. The State has moved the Court for recall of the interim order op erating in WP(C) 1620/2009 on the ground that the said interim order was based o n the order passed by the Division Bench on 22.5.2009 in W.A. No. 135/2005 (Land mark Establishment Private Limited vs. State of Assam). It is submitted by Mr. C houdhury that on the strength of a subsequent order of the Division Bench passed on 12.11.2010 in Misc. Case 3177/2010 in the same W.A. 135/2009, a Misc. Applic ation 3760/2010 was filed by the State for recall of the interim order operating in WP(C) 1619/2009 and the said application was moved before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.1.2011. It is pointed out that the interim order oper ating in favour of the writ petitioner in that case was recalled and the Court h ad vacated the interim order operating in WP(C) 1619/2009. 3. Contending that the writ petitioner in the present case is in th e same footings as the writ petitioner in WP(C) 1619/2010, Mr. Choudhury has mov ed this application for recall of the interim order operating in WP(C) 1620/2009 . 4. Mr. G.N. Sahewall, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the O.P. (writ petitioner) however contends that the writ petitioner herein has already f urnished a complete list of purchasers to the Revenue, who have already entered into agreement for purchase of flats and accordingly the interim order passed in the present case should continue to operate. 5. Considering the submissions made by the rival counsels and beari ng in mind that the interim order in the present case was based on the interim o rder passed in the proceeding initiated by M/s Landmark Establishment Private Li mited, where in the interim order was vacated by the learned Single Judge on 10. 1.2011 by passing order in Misc. Case 3760/2010, I am of the view that the O.P. in this case is in the same footing as the writ petitioner in the other case, wh o are no more enjoying the benefit of an interim order because of the order pass ed by the learned Single Judge on 10.1.2011. 6. In view of above, this Misc. Application filed by the State is a llowed and the interim order passed on 5.6.2009 ordered in WA 152/2009 arising o ut of WP(C) 1620/2009 stands recalled. 7. It is ordered accordingly.