JUDGMENT :

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

Challenge in these writ appeals is to the common order dated 15.10.2020 made in W.M.P. Nos.18541 & 18544 of 2020 in W.P. Nos.14925 & 14927 of 2020.

2. W.P. No.14925 of 2020 is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order No.2601/Pers.IR.1/2019 dt.14.09.2020 passed by the Managing Director-cum-Commissioner of Milk Production, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the service byelaws of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd and for a consequential direction to the respondents to drop all further proceedings in pursuance to the charge memo No.2601/Pers.IR.1/2019 dt.15.07.2019 and to treat the period of suspension from 20.02.2019 to 26.12.2019 as spent on duty without any leave adjustment.

3. W.P. No.14927 of 2020 is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order No.1873/Pers.Estt.1/2020 dt.17.09.2020 passed by the Managing Director-cum-Commissioner of Milk Production, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the service byelaws of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd and for a consequential direction to the respondents therein to restore the petitioner to the post of General Manager (Dairying) with all consequential benefits and to settle his terminal benefits in the scale of General Manager (Dairying).

4. At the time of admission of both the writ petitions, the writ petitioner was granted an order of interim stay. The second respondent therein also filed a counter affidavit seeking to vacate the interim stay granted.

5. It is well settled law that a writ appeal would not lie against an interim order. Instead of getting the stay vacated in the writ petitions and get the writ petitions finally disposed of, the appellants have rushed to this court by filing these writ appeals, which are not at all maintainable.

6. The issue as to whether a writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable as against an interim order granted in a writ petition, is no longer res integra. An application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, can be filed for vacating the said order and that an appeal directly against such interim order should not be entertained. For better appreciation, Article 226(3) is extracted hereunder:

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without?

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.

7. In Midnapore Peoples Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chunilal Nanda & Ors., in Appeal (civil) 1727 of 2002, dated 25.05.2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and in Paragraph No.16, it has been held as follows:

16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories :

(i) Orders which finally decide a qu