Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) These two mandamus appeals were taken up for hearing analogously as those were interlinked to some extent.
(2.) The appeal, being A. P. O. No. 397 of 2006 arises out of a writ application numbered as W. P. No. 1592 of 2006 whereas the other one being A. P. O. No. 396 of 2006 crops out of a different writ application marked as W. P No. 1590 of 2006. Both the aforesaid writ applications were moved before a learned Single Judge of this Court during the Puja vacation. By the first writ application, the writ petitioners, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before us, challenged an order dated 29th May, 2006 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the Tribunal passed an order of status quo on an application filed by the appellant before us for a limited period which was subsequently extended on different occasions and was continuing till the presentation of the writ application and 2nd November, 2006, was the next date fixed for hearing the application along with other applications after the Puja vacation before the Tribunal.
(3.) The learned Single Judge, on the very first date of moving the said application, i.e. October 11, 2006, disposed of the same by directing the Tribunal not to extend the order of status quo before disposing of the application for condonation of delay in filing the stay application upon which such order of status quo was passed with further direction that both the applications i.e. the application for condonation of delay and the main application should be disposed of by November 30, 2006 at the latest. His Lordship was informed by the parties that the interim order was subsisting till November 2, 2006, the next date fixed in the Tribunal. Although prayer for mandamus directing the Tribunal to recall the order dated May 29, 2006 and at the same time, a writ in the nature of prohibition asking the Tribunal not to give effect to the said order dated May 29, 2006 were prayed for, His Lordship did not issue those writs. A further prayer for writ in nature of certiorari was also made for transmitting the records of the Tribunal to this Court, but such prayer was not granted.;