( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated may 20, 1997, passed by the divisional commissioner, Bangalore in No. Gin. Appeal 2 of 1997-98, and the petitioner has sought the quashing of that order.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case as appears from the record are that earlier that is in 1991, in pursuance of proceedings in arbitration no. 1 of 1971, finally registered sale deed dated 29-8-1991, was executed in favour of respondent no. 3 by the other partners and the application for grant of permit was made by the petitioner and the respondent alleges to have made the application for permit, while the fact that is respondents having moved the application, is denied by the petitioner. This is not very material fact at this juncture. The main application for re-grant of licence made by the petitioner has not been disposed of till today, instead the licensing authority granted a temporary permit that is temporary licence in favour of the present petitioner vide, order dated 12-4-1997, Annexure-B to the writ petition for the period from 15th of may, 1997 to 15th of august, 1997.

( 3 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the order of the licensing authority granting temporary permit which rule-86 of the Karnataka cinemas (regulation) rules, provides that such temporary permit also will be deemed to be a licence for the purpose of the rules and the respondent 3 filed an appeal under Section 10 of the act. The appeal was heard by the divisional commissioner and the appellate authority - the divisional commissioner allowed the appeal taking the view as under:"it is clear from the order sheet that the district magistrate had passed the impugned order on 6-5-1997 without hearing the appellant and that the case was posted for hearing on merits on 27-5-1997. It is further observed that appellant and respondent no. 3 in the appeal were involved in a series of bitter litigation involving this theatre over many years, and also that the theatre had not run for a year, the divisional commissioner observed, it was necessary for the district magistrate to have heard both the parties before passing the interim order".

( 4 ) THE divisional commissioner therefore, stayed the operation of order dated 6-5-1997 passed by the district magistrate, whereunder a temporary licence was granted and in pursuance of which annexure-b was issued, that is the order granting temporary permit was stayed by the divisional commissioner till the final decision of the case and the divisional commissioner directed the licensing authority/district magistrate, to hear both the parties and then take a decision, as he deemed just and necessary in the matter.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved from this order of the divisional commissioner, the petitioner has come up before this court, by petition under article 226 of the constitution.

( 6 ) NOTICE was issued to the respondents and the counter affidavit and rejoinder have been exchanged.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that appeal from this order of temporary permit was untenable, as no appeal is provided from order of temporary permit or licence and therefore, the order impugned is bad and without jurisdiction. It was further contended that the temporary licence that had been granted has expired on 15th of august, 1997, during the pendency of this writ petition and writ petition may be taken to have become infructuous.

( 8 ) THESE contentions have been contested. The respondent pressed for decision if his appeal was maintainable or not.

( 9 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by parties counsel. no doubt writ petition had been filed on 26-5-1997, from the order dated 20th may, 1997 and the petitioner obtained interim order of stay and under interim order continued to run the picture. To avoid such a situation, though the temporary permit (temporary licence) had expired and writ has become infructuous on 15th of august, 1997, i think it proper to decide the question whether an order of t