The court must exercise caution in granting interim relief that conforms to the specific relief sought in the original application.

K. NATARAJAN.J This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant as against the order passed by the learned Single judge of this court in W.P(C)No. 33880/2025 dated 16. 10.2025.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government pleader as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 herein.

3. The case of the appellant is that Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition seeking four reliefs, and the fourth relief as well as the interim relief claimed in the writ petition are one and the same. Therefore, issuing a direction in the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is nothing but granting the main relief No.4 in the writ petition. Therefore the order under challenge is not sustainable under the law and also directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 for issuing permit is also not within the purview of the court. It has to be decided by the Authorities and therefore prayed for setting aside the same.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Writ Petitioner contends that though the learned Single Judge of this Court granted interim relief directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reconsider the application filed by Respondent No. 1 in compliance with the judgment passed by the STAT and the judgment passed by this High Court in Exhibit-P15. The matter was reconsidered by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and the application of Respondent No. 1 was once again rejected on 03.10.2025. Aggrieved by the said rejection and the direction of the learned Single Judge, Respondent No. 1 filed another writ petition before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 37878/2025. When the matter was taken up before the learned Single Bench, an interim order was passed directing issuance of a temporary permit for four months. Therefore, it is contended that the said order was passed in the subsequent writ petition and not in Writ Petition No. 33880/2025. It is further submitted that no appeal has been filed against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, and hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the interim order passed in the other writ petition has not been challenged. However, the present challenge is in Writ Petition No.

33880/2025, and hence prayed for dismissing the appeal. 6. Having considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel and perused the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.10.2025 in Writ Petition No. 33880/2025, as well as the relief sought by Respondent No. 1 in the said writ petition, wherein Respondent No. 1 sought the following reliefs in Writ Petition No. 33880/2025.

“i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P19 and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P17 and quash the same. iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 1" respondent to reconsider the pending application for renewal of Exhibit Pl permit and Exhibit P18 application for replacement of vehicle in compliance with Exhibit P18 judgment of the STAT untrammeled by Exhibit P19 order of the 1^st respondent. iv. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application for temporary permit in compliance with Exhibit P 14 judgment of the STAT and Exhibit P15 judgment of this Honorable Court untrammeled by Exhibit P17 order of the 2nd respondent.

v. Issue such other writ order or direction as this Honorable Court may deem fit and apposite in the facts and circumstances of the case.