M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-Learned counsel for the appellant states that when the learned Single Judge had refused to proceed with the writ 4 petition, there was no power to grant a stay extending beyond the date of disposal of the writ petition. In support he cites the Authority of the Indian Supreme Court in The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (1) in which the following view had been taken :- "An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in suit or proceeding, If the Court was of opinion that there was no other adequate remedy open to the petitioners, it might have proceeded to investigate the case on its merits and come to a decision as to whether the petitioners succeeded in establishing that there was an infringement of any of their legal rights which entitled them to a writ o f mandamus or any other directions of a like nature ; Pending such determination it might have made a suitable interim order for maintaining the status quo ante. But when the Court declined to decide on the rights o f the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit issue directions in the nature of temporary injunction."
Rana Abdur Rahim learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the said order could not have been passed without notice to and in the absence of the respondents because they were to be affected adversely by the order.
2. As the appeal is not being contested by the respondents, the same is allowed and the writ petition is held to have been disposed of without any order of stay attaching therewith.
(1) AIR 1952 SC 12