The High Court has a peremptory duty to dispose of an application for vacating an ex-parte stay order within the specified period under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, and failure to do so results in the ex-parte stay order standing vacated ipso-facto.

The above Civil Rules arise out of common orders which are challenged in two petitions by separate peti­tioners. This order will govern both Civil Rules so far as the stay orders passed by this Court are concerned.

2. The petitioners in Civil Rule 388 of 1981 obtained ad-interim stay order against the respondents. The order runs as:-

"Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitoner.

Let the records be called for. Let a Rule issue calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ should not issue as prayed for; or why such further or other order should not be passed as to this court may seem fit and proper.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sr. Govt. Advocate for the State of Assam in regard to the stay. Stay the operation of impugned order, Annexure 'B' and 'F' to the petition until further orders."

3. It appears that annexure 'E' to the petition the opera­tion of which was stayed, has been wrongly mentioned as annexure 'F' in the stay order. Annexure 'F' as such is to be read as Annexure 'E'.

4. Similar is the Stay order in the other Civil Rule 389 of 1981, which the petitioner obtained against the respondents, in Civil Rule 389 of 1981, the impugned orders stayed are Annexures 'C' and 'F' to the petition which correspond to Annexures 'B' and 'E' to the petition in the other Civil Rule.

5. The ad-interim Stay orders in both Rules were passed after hearing the learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State, but without (a) furnishing to the other respondents copies of the petitions and all documents in support of the plea for the interim order; and (b) giving them an opportunity of being heard, as contemplated in clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution. The ad-interim orders were, therefore, ex-parte as against the other respondents, who were affected by the said orders.

6. In both the Civil Rules, the respondent No. 4, who felt aggrieved by the ex-parte order, made applications on 6.7.81 to this court for the vacation and or modification of the said ex-parte order and furnished a copy of such applica­tion to the Counsel of the petitioners on the tame date. The application filed by the respondent No. 4 for vacating and or modifying the stay order was placed before this court on 9.7.81. On 9.7.81 the court passed the order as follows :

"Let the matter come up in the first week of August, 1981 for consideration of the stay order as prayed for by the learned counsel for both the parties. In the meantime, the petitioner may file objection, if any."

7. Similar order was passed in the other Civil Rule. Both the cases were listed for hearing on stay matter on 21.8.81, but on that day also the petitioners' counsel took time for a week. The counsel for the respondent made no objection to the adjournment. Hearing for consideration of the vacating and or modification of the stay orders was taken up on 22.9.81, and learned counsel of both parties were heard. It was concluded on 23.9.81.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that as the application filed by the respondent No. 4 was not disposed of within a period of two weeks from 6.7-81, by this court as enjoined by clause (3) of Article 226 of the constitution, the ex-parte stay order dated 9.4.81 as against it stood vacated ipso-facto. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that since the application filed by respondent No. 4 was attended to by the court on 9.7.81, the ad-interim stay would continue until it was vacated or modified by the court. In short, the contention was that the expression 'dispose of occurring in Article 226 (3) of the Constitution does not connote final disposal.

9. A perusal of Article 226 shows that in appropriate cases where justice demands, the High Court may pass an interim order ex-parte whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner on, or it) any proceeding rela­ting to, a petition under clause (1) without (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all docume