S.Chatterji, J. - (1.) -This case has an chequered background indeed. The writ petition was moved ex parte without notice to the Respondents on 11th September, 1992. Mr. Aninyda Mitra, learned Counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner No. 1, Sushil Kumar Dalmia for self and on behalf of other subscribers to the issue of Convertible Debentures by Videocon Narmada Electronics Limited and the petitioner No. 2 Mathew Easow, a Financial Consultant, pressed the writ application in seeking leave to sue in the representative capacity and prayed for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1, Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, having its office at 'Bikaner House', Shahjahan Road, New Delhi, to quash, recall and cancel the order dated September 2 and September 9, 1992, issued on the case No. 11A 64 of 1992 and to refrain from entertaining the complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 2 and to refrain from proceeding with the Enquiry case No. 133 of 1992 in any manner whatsoever, and for injunction restraining any effect being given to or any action in reliance upon or from enforcing the impugned order dated September 7 and September 9, 1992, issued by the Respondent No. 1 in 11A 64 of 1992 in connection with Enquiry case UPTE 133 of 1992 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and also to direct the Respondent No. 4, Videocon Narmada Electronics Limited to extend the time for closure of the public issue of the said debentures which are open on 7th September, 1992, by a period of three more working days and to take necessary steps in that regard and complete the allotment of convertible debentures within 90 days from the date of closure of the issue.
(2.) While moving the said writ petition on 11th September, 1992, the learned counsel requested the Court to pass an interim order. The matter remained heard in part and the petitioners were asked to serve immediate notice to the Respondent No. 2, namely, the Director General of Investigation and Registration and the matter was fisted to appear on Monday that is on 14th of September, 1992, and no interim order was made at that stage.
(3.) On Monday it was brought to the notice of the Court that an appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Division Bench, and an ad-interim order was obtained on 11th September, 1992. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no stay of further proceeding of the present writ petition, and it appears that this court was in the midst of hearing of the writ petition as to the maintainability and to consider the prima facie case, and before any specific order was made, the matter was taken in the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court, however, with its own wisdom, passed an ad-interim order but since there is no stay of proceedings of the hearing before this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is no bar and/or impediment to get the matter heard.;