By the Court.—This appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment dated 10.1.2001 of the Hon’ble Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48654 of 2000 wherein his Lordship has taken a general view on the question as to whether application for extension of time bound interim orders is necessary or whether it must be heard by the same Judge or it could be heard by another Judge, who is seized of the jurisdiction as a result of rotation of Bench and has held that no order is required to be passed as time bound interim order. If case is not taken up, and if the petitioner applies for question answer from the office to find out whether his application was pending and interim order was continuing even after expiry of time mentioned in the order, the answer be given by the office in the affirmative.

2. Having heard learned Standing Counsel, we are of the view that the judgment under appeal is not sustainable in law.

3. In Ashok Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2007 (3) SCC 470, the Apex Court said “There is no warrant for the proposition, as was stated by the High Court that unless an order of stay passed once even for the limited period is