HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6925 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of the official respondent and Sri N. Ashok Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The 4th respondent herein had earlier filed W.P. No.4025 of 2010 to declare the inaction of the respondents in not passing any orders on his representation made in respect of Survey No.406 and 407 of an extent of Ac.2.32 and Ac.4.90 guntas of Utnoor Mandal of Adilabad District as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice. He sought a consequential direction to the respondents to conduct an enquiry, pass orders on his representation and to direct the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, (the petitioner herein), not to change the nature of the land. This Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 23.02.2010. The operative portion of the said order reads thus: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to consider the representation purported to have been filed by the petitioner on 01.02.2010 and pass appropriate orders, as per law, after issuing notice to all the concerned. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 2nd respondent shall also consider as to granting of stay with regard to the constructions being raised by the 4th respondent, during pendency of consideration of the representation of the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.” Thereafter the 2nd respondent herein, on receipt of the order of this Court, considered the petitioner’s application seeking stay of further construction by the 4th respondent, (the petitioner herein), on the schedule property and to restrain him, his servants, agents, labourers, contractors etc. The 2nd respondent took note of the order of this Court in W.P. No.4025 of 2010 that she was required to consider grant of stay with regard to the construction raised by the 4th respondent (the petitioner herein) during the pendency of consideration of the representation. The 2nd respondent herein passed the following order: “Upon motion made into this Court for the petitioner and upon reading the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh received on 17.03.2010. Upon perusal of material papers on record. This Court doth the following order. “Stay order be granted to the Petitioner restraining the Respondent herein, their servants, agents and henchmen, not to proceed with further construction over the schedule property herein till the pendency of the case until further orders of this Court.” Accordingly the Interim Application is disposed off. Typed to my dictation corrected by me in open Court on this 19th day of March, 2010.” It is evident, from the afore-extracted order, that the interim order passed by the 2nd respondent was to remain in force till the pendency of the case or until further orders and that the interim application was being disposed of. It is not in dispute that, despite a specific direction by this Court that any orders which may be passed should be after issuing notice to all the parties concerned, the petitioner herein was not put on notice before the interim order aforementioned was passed. Sri N. Ashok Kumar, Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, would, however, contend that the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 17/19.03.2010 is an ad-interim order of stay and the petitioner herein can as well file a petition before the 2nd respondent seeking vacation of the interim order. This contention of the Learned Counsel does not merit acceptance in as much as a petition to vacate stay can be filed only if the interim application is still pending on the file of the 2nd respondent and not where the interim application has itself been disposed of. Sri N. Ashok Kumar, Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, would further contend that the order of this Court required the 2nd respondent to put the parties on notice only for disposal of the main case and not while passing an interlocutory order. I am afraid I cannot agree. The Order of this Court required the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation only after issuing notice to all concerned. The 4th respondent herein had sought a direction from this Court, in W.P. No.4025 of 2010, requesting that the 4th respondent (the petitioner herein) should be directed not to change the nature of the land. This Court did not consider it appropriate to pass any order interdicting the petitioner herein from construction or from changing the nature of the land. Since this Court had refused to examine the matter on merits, or to grant the relief sought for, and had specifically directed that the orders which the 2nd respondent should pass should only be after issuing notice to all the parties concerned, I see no reason to restrict the requirement of giving a notice, to all the concerned parties, only to the main application and not to the application seeking stay. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the stay application afresh in accordance with law. Since the petitioner is now aware of the representation submitted by the 4th respondent he shall submit his objections to the stay petition within one week from today. The 2nd respondent shall, thereafter, afford both the petitioner and the 4th respondent an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, pass orders afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state that, in case the petitioner herein does not file his objections within one week from today, it will be open to the 2nd respondent to proceed ex parte and pass orders on the stay application. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:12.04.2010 Note: Issue copy by 16.04.2010 B/o MRKR