( 1 ) ). THIS is an application tiled under Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, by the applicant-original respondent No. 1 for vacating the ex parte ad-interim order dated 16-12-1999 granted in the petition.

( 2 ) IT is stated that the above Special Civil Application was filed in this court and this Court passed the following order :"rule. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 18-1-2000. Ad-interim relief in terms of Para 8 (C) till then. Sd/- date : 16-12-1999 A. M. Kapadia, Judge. "this application has been moved on the following main amongst other grounds as mentioned in Para-2 of the application. (1) There is no pleading, documentary evidence and affidavit-in-support of an urgency at all for an ad-interim relief in the petition. (2) A claim to an ad-interim relief in Para 8 (C) of the petition is without a cause of action alleged, evidence and duly proved especially therefor on the face of the petition anywhere. (3) An otherwise please "as the matter is urgent one" alleged of and addressed to the learned Registrar of this Honble Court in the "urgent note" dated apparently nil by the learned two Advocates for the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 is opposed to, outside the legitimate scope of an falsified by the true material fact obtaining to the contrary that reckoned from the impugned orders dated 31-3-1999 to the petitions institution date 6-12-1999 or thereabout the alleged plea of urgent itself therein is late, belated and dislodged by the delay of or many as 249 days or thereabout. (4) The opponent Nos. 1 and 2 acting through their learned Advocates have falsely, incorrectly and improperly invoked application of Rule 77 of the g. H. C. Rules, 1993 (briefly, "the Rules"), the learned Registrar has mistakingly only allowed to be passed through him the said invocation and this Honble Court has apparently erroneously let to being applied and enforced the said invocation through nothing is as a matter -of hard fact embodied on the record of the petition to let one to be duly, lawfully and reasonably "satisfied about the urgency" thereunder in the case. (5) No conditions precedent to ever lawfully reach and invoke Rule 179 (1) of the Rules to the opponent 1 and 2s favour and against this applicants already executable decretal-rights are met and satisfied in the case and in terms of the said very rule this Honble Court has failed and erred to think "just" in its issuing the direction on 16-12-1999 in first instance. (6) The direction in the first instance and the subsequent orders continuing if are contrary to and inconsistent with the material facts of the case, violative of the law of ad-interim relief, illegal, invalid, improper, irregular, perverse not just and reasonable at all and deserve to be vacated forthright. (7) Not even prima facie, there exists any good case for the grant of and continuing, the rule in the petition much less for the urgency in the grant of ad-interim stay of "implementastion and operation" of the impugned orders in the petition and still much less for any continuity of and letting confirmed the ad-interim stay thereof. (8) No irreparable injury and substantial loss to the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 emerge to ensue in the case in the absence of the stay of the implementation and operation of the impugned orders being prayed for. (9) No balance of convenience weighs in the opponents 1 and 2s favour qualifying them to the stay prayed for. (10) There is never made the claim for the stay at once, forthwith and without the accompanying, long and unreasonable delay of the intervening about 249 days and this long drawn and prolonged delay itself disqualifies the grant thereof. (11) There is not even the security for the due payment of the decretal debt payable under the impugned orders offered or otherwise enjoined to be duly furnished though the impugned orders are for payment of money itself only.

( 3 ) IT is also stated that the applicant respondent has also moved an application being Mis