Interim orders can only be vacated under Article 226(3) when specific conditions are satisfied; extensions negate the automatic vacating.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J This appeal is filed challenging the interim order dated

19.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.25931 of 2024. Appellant herein was the 4^th respondent in the W.P. (C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the 1^st respondent, Chess Association Kerala, challenging Ext.P39 proceedings dated 10.07.2024 of the Kerala State Sports Council (2^nd respondent). By the said order, the 2^nd respondent had, purportedly in compliance of the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.11 of 2018 and in exercise of their powers under Section 31 (A)(2) of the Kerala Sports Act cancelled the recognition of the 1^st respondent from 02.07.2024 onwards and had entrusted the task of conducting District and State level chess competitions for selecting players to participate in the national level competitions as well as the activities in the field of chess, upon the Technical Committee constituted by the Sports Council.

3. After a due admission hearing, the learned Single Judge had vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 admitted the W.P. (C) and issued notice to the respondents, including the appellant herein. The W.P.(C) was adjourned to 19.08.2024, and till such time, the operation of Ext.P39 order was stayed by the learned Single Judge. This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the said interim order of the learned Single Judge on the premise that the same ought to be vacated in terms of Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India .

4. Heard Smt.Varsha Bhaskar, Advocate for the Appellant, Sri.Dinsesh R Shenoy, Advocate for the 1^st respondent, Smt.Latha Anand, Advocate for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate for the 4^th respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on Article 226 (3) of the Constitution contended that though an application to vacate the impugned interim order had been filed, the learned Single Judge had not disposed of the said application within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application, and hence the interim order is fit to be vacated as mandated under (3). It is submitted that (3) is self-operating and that once the six conditions mentioned therein are conjoined, the sub-article operates by itself, leading to the erasure of the ex-parte interim order. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in P.Raghunandanan v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad and others [ 1995 (2) KLT 21 ] to substantiate the said contention. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. and others [ (2024) 6 SCC 267 ] which laid down the procedure to be adopted by the High Courts while passing interim orders of stay of proceedings and for dealing with the applications for vacating interim stay. The learned counsel thus vehemently prayed that the Writ Appeal may be allowed and the interim order dated 19.07.2024 may be declared as vacated.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/

petitioner in the WP (C) submitted that W.P.(C) No.25931 of 2024 in which the application dated 23.09.2024 to vacate the interim order was filed by the appellant had been posted before the learned Single Judge along with other connected matters on various dates and the interim order impugned herein was being extended from time to time. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that the interim order dated 19.07.2024 had been extended on different occasions and hence none of the contentions put forth based on Article 226 (3) are sustainable. It is submitted that the matter is only to be relegated to the learned Single Judge for final hearing and disposal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant in reply submits that the extension of the interim o