Thomas, J.

Though the provision is explicit in the Constitution, it is seldom resorted to by parties aggrieved by interim ex parte orders passed by this Courtin writ petitions. When it was pointed, in this Writ Appeal, to the counsel for the appellant that he could have availed himself of the benefit of the provision contained in Art.226(3) instead of challenging the interim order learned counsel has opted to do so. However, the Writ Appeal has to be disposed of by a judgment.

2. Appellant was the third respondent in an Original Petition filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the KSRTC) under Art.226 of the Constitution in challenge of a judgment passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the STAT") on a Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed along with the said Original Petition. Learned single. Judge, before whom the Original Petition came up for admission, granted an interim order staying the operation of the judgment of the STAT. This happened on 18-1-1995. Notice was ordered to the third respondent in the Original Petition, who is the appellant here. He entered appearance and submitted a petition on 24-2-1995 praying for vacati