Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26210 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4334 of 2025 Petitioner :- Heena Bano And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Bahraich And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State- respondents and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.7. 2. In view of order proposed to be passed notice to private- respondent nos. 3 to 6 is dispensed with. 3. By means of present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in Case/Appeal No. 2151 of 2021, Computerized Case No. C202408000002151 (Heena Bano and others Vs. Yunus), under Section 207 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") on the ground that the respondent no. 2 declined to grant the interim protection to the appellant/petitioner. 4. The prayer to grant interim protection has been declined without recording any reasons which are required as per various pronouncements (Vide : Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836; Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union reported in (1971) 2 QB 175, 191 : (1971) 1 All ER 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree reported in 1974 ICR 120; Regina Vs. Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Khan (Mahmud) reported in 1983 QB 790 : (1983) 2 All ER 420; Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1969) 3 SCC 868; Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. reported in (1970) 1 SCC 764; Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v. Union of India reported in (1976) 2 SCC 981; Kranti Associates Private Limited And Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan And Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496) as also that during the pendency of the appeal rights of parties should be preserved as held by the Apex Court in the case of Moolchand Yadav & Another v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur and others, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 484 as also that the authority who can pass the final order can also pass interim order as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Bhalotia vs. State of U.P., reported in 2000 (18) LCD 532. 5. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, the order dated 05.02.2025 is liable to be interfered only to the extent whereby the respondent no. 2 has declined to grant the interim protection to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. 6. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 to decide the prayer seeking interim protection sought by the petitioner afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order on the next date fixed in the case, if not possible, at most within a maximum period of one month from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench