U.B. Saha, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner Bank. Also heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. K. Das, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-respondents and Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 in the writ petition.

2. The instant application is filed by the respondent creditor Bank for granting them leave to sell out the secured assets of the writ petitioners already in their possession and also for vacating the interim order dated 4-12-2009 passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 392 of 2009 arising out of W.P. (C) No. 381 of 2009 whereby and whereunder this Court after hearing Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners came to a conclusion that an ad interim order was called for and accordingly, as an interim measure, it was ordered that the secured assets shall not be sold out without leave of this Court. This Court also granted liberty to the respondents to file application for modification/alteration of the said interim order and disposed of the said Misc. Application.

3. It is the admitted position that the aforesaid interim order was passed in absence of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid ex parte order, the creditor respondent Bank filed the instant application on 18-1-2010 and the said application came up before this Court time and again. Some time the respondent creditor Bank who are the petitioners herein and some time both the parties prayed for time and due to such prayer of the parties, the instant application for vacating the interim order dated 4-12-2009 could not be disposed of. Ultimately on 9-4-2010. This application was taken up for hearing and the matter was partly heard fixing 12-4-2010 for further hearing. On that date again the matter was heard and fixed today for further hearing. Accordingly, the matter is taken up today.

4. When the matter is called on today for hearing again, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the respondent creditor bank, petitioners herein contended that in view of the provision of Article226(3) of the Constitution, the interim order passed by this Court on 4-12-2009 in CM Application No. 392 of 2009 (disposed of) arising out of W.P. (C) No. 381 of 2009 has automatically stood vacated as the instant petition for vacating the interim order has not been disposed of by this Court within a period of two weeks from the date on which it was received by the Registry of this Court. He further contended that if the application for vacation of the interim order is not disposed of within the stipulated period either for the reason that the writ petitioners or the respondents prayed for time, the prescription of the Constitution is the High Court shall dispose the said petition within the period of two weeks from the date on which it was received or from the date on which the copy of such application was furnished to the party in whose favour such order has been made, whichever is later and if the High Court is closed then on the last day of the said period, the interim order shall stand vacated if the application is not disposed of before the expiry of the next day on which the High Court is open. He also contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable as the respondent creditor Bank has also approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

5. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Chakraborty placed reliance on the decision of this Court in South East Bus Association v. The State of Assam, reported in (1981) 1 GLR 305.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners, respondent herein submits that as the respondent creditor Bank took time on various dates and the delay was caused for disposal of the instant application due to seeking time by the respondent creditor Bank, the rigour of Article 226(3) of the Constitution will not apply in the case in hand. He also submits that the fact involved in the case