Jagannadha Rao, C.J.

The question in these two matters which has been referred to this larger Bench by a Full Bench consisting of three of us, is as follows:

"Whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench under S.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against an interlocutory order in a Writ Petition, while the main Writ Petition is pending and if so, what are the circumstances under which or the types of cases in which such an appeal would lie?"

Before adverting to the question, it would be necessary to slate, briefly, the facts in the two unnumbered appeals. In the first of the matters, the Writ Appeal is preferred by the Writ Petitioners against the orders in CMP 17073/91 in OP 9800/91. The dispute relates to the auction of toddy shops in Vaikkomand Kadulhurulhy ranges for three years from 1-4-1991 by the Collector. The Writ Petitioners were trie successful bidders for Rs.17, 20,000/-. The seventh respondent filed an earlier O.P. 3976 of 1981 challenging the sale confirmation, contending that he was forcibly kept out of the auction and he was prepared for Rs.27, 20,000/-. The auction was confirmed and the licences were issued in favour of the Writ Petitioners pending that Writ Petition. Later that Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the State that the events leading to the auction and its confirmation may be elaborately considered by the authorities in the light of the allegations made by the seventh respondent. Thereafter, the Special Secretary (Taxes) heard the matter and passed Ext.P4 order on 19-9-1991. It was held that the action of the District Collector was not in order and that there was truth in the seventh respondent's allegations as to his being forcibly prevented from participating in the re-negotiations. The earlier sale and confirmation made in favour of the Writ Petitioners was cancelled and the Excise Commissioner was directed to confirm the sale for three years from 1-4-1991 in favour of the seventh respondent for Rs.27,20,000/-. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue issued Ext. PS order dated 24-9-1991 confirming the sale in favour of the seventh respondent. The Original Petition No.9800 of 1991 was filed challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders. The learned single judge, after hearing all the parties in the CMP, staled that prima facie' he had no reason to think that there was any circumstance justifying stay of the operation of Ext.P4, that the speed at which Exts.P4 and P5 were sought to be implemented by execution of agreements and grant of licences in favour of the seventh respondent could only be on account of the exigencies of the situation and that that did not show any malafides. It was further staled that whether Exts.P4 and P5 were liable to be interfered with or not, was a mailer that could be considered only after hearing the contentions of all concerned in detail and that if petitioners were liable to succeed, their interests could be properly safeguarded. On these grounds, stay of Exts.P4 and P5 was refused by order dated 27-9-1991. It is this order in the C.M.P. that is appealed against.

2. The second of the Writ Appeals arises out of CMP 12030 of 1991 in OP 7132 of 1991-dated 15-7-1991. The appellants are respondents 4 and 5 in the O.P. The appellants were nominated to the Board of Directors of a Co-operative Bank as per Ext.P1 order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 31-8-1987. Later the Joint Registrar nominated the two Writ Petitioners on 10-7-1991 but again withdrew the same under Ext.P2. The said withdrawal was challenged on the ground that once the nomination of the writ petitioners was made, the same could not be withdrawn since their term would be co-terminus with that of the elected members. The learned Single Judge admitted the Original Petition and granted interim slay on 15-7-1991, staying the operation of Ext.P2 order pending the Original Petition. The appellants filed a counter and when the CMP came up on 30-9-1991, the learned judge initially passed an