Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34612 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5743 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chaudhari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Tripathi,Arvind Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 6 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails part of the order dated 20.05.2025, whereby the respondent No.2 while considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities Order has admitted the appeal, however, while dealing with an application for interim relief, the appellate Court by a detailed order has rejected it. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the appeal was admitted and the Court had expressed that in order to hear the appeal, the records would be necessary but then while considering the application for interim relief by a detailed order, the same has been rejected by practically entering into the merits of the matter. It is submitted that at the time of consideration of an application for interim relief, the Court is not required to enter into the merits or hold a mini trial. By entering into the merits and returning detailed findings, for rejecting the application for interim relief, it impacts the final outcome. Even if the record is made available, it cannot be said that how much of the mind of the appellate Authority has been influenced by the detailed order which may get translated into the final order to be passed. In such circumstances, the part of the order by which the application for interim relief has been rejected, is per se bad. It has further been urged that the appeal is now fixed for hearing 01.07.2025 while vide order dated 22.05.2025, a notice has been issued for a fresh meeting which is scheduled to be held today itself i.e. 05.06.2025. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner prays that unless certain protection is granted to the petitioner, the rights of the petitioner would be adversely impacted. Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the State- respondents has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions, however, could not dispute the fact that while rejecting the application for interim relief, the appellate Court has entered into the merits. He also could not dispute the fact that practically by rejecting the application for interim relief, it has foreclosed the appeal itself. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties that even if the appellate Authority is directed to revisit the order, insofar as it rejected the application for interim relief, they would have no objection. In light of the aforesaid without entering into the merits, the part of the order dated 20.05.2025 insofar as it rejected the application for interim relief of the petitioner is set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the appellate Court, who shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the application of the petitioner for interim relief afresh without being influenced with any of the observations made in the impugned order in accordance with law, taking note of the decisions of the Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar & Anr. v. Prahlad Singh & Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 719, Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1, Wander Ltd. and another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 only to the extend of how, prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are to be construed and thereafter consider and decide the application of the petitioner for interim relief afresh. The parties shall appear before the appellate Authority on 11.06.2025 and the application for interim relief shall be considered preferably within a period of two weeks. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the plea of either of the parties on merits and the order impugned has been interfered only on account of the fact that it has exceeded its jurisdiction while dealing with the application for interim relief. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench