( 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,.