- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, who has put in appearance at this stage, has also been heard. The appellant feels aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the learned single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition which is awaiting final disposal. In the interim order in question, the operation of the resolution dated 29-6-2003, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, was directed to remain stayed.
(3.) THE only submission urged and pressed in support of the present special appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the interlocutory order in question ought not have been granted and if at all such an order could be available at the final disposal of the writ petition. It has also been urged that no reason has been assigned for issusing such an interlocutory order.;