( 1 ) RULE and emergent notice. The petitioner has praved for grant of ad interim order of stav staving the operation of the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, kolar sub-division, dt. 17th September 1976 (Ext B ). The petitioner has stated in paragraph-18 of the petition that copies of the petition have been sent to the respondents under certificate of posting and that they have been duly served with the copies of the petition and annexures thereto. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner pravs that ad interim order of stay may be granted as the respondents though served with the copies of the petition and the annexures thereto, are not present to oppose the petitioner's prayer. ( 3 ) ART. 226 (4) of the Constitution provides as follows :"no interim order (whether by way of in-junction or stay or in any other manner) shall be made on, or in any proceedings relating to a petition under clause (i) unless- (a) copies of such petition and of all documents in support of the plea for such interim order are furnished to the party against whom such petition is filed or proposed to be filed, and (b) opportunity is given to such party to be heard in the matter. "all that the petitioner has been able to show is that he has served the copies of the petition and the annexures thereto on the respondents by sending the same by post under certificate of posting. But the requirements of Art. 226 (4) of the Constitution are that not only the copies of the petition and the annexures thereto should be served on the party against whom interim order of stay is prayed for, but that an opportunity should also be given to such party of being heard in the matter. Mere sending of the copies of petition and the annexures thereto to the respondents and intimating that the petitioner intends moving this Court for interim relief on a particular day, is not equivalent to giving an opportunity to the party to be affected by the interim order, of being heard in the matter. Mere sending of the copies of petition and the annexures thereto to the respondents and intimating that the petitioner intends moving this Court for interim relief on a particular day, is not equivalent to giving an opportunity to the party to be affected by the interim order, of being heard in the matter. The requirements of Art. 226 (4) of the Constitution are mandatory Before granting an interim order not only the copies of the petition and the annexures thereto should be served on the party against whom the interim order is sought, but that the said party should also be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. By merely serving copies of the petition and the annexures thereto to the party against whom the interim order is sought, the opportunity of hearing contemplated by Art. 226 (4) of the constitution is not afforded to such party. What is contemplated bv art. 226 (4) of the Constitution is an opportunitv to the opposite partv of being heard in the matter, and not merely intimation of the intention on the part of the petitioner to move the Court on a particular day for grant of interim order. The party who gives such an intimation may not move the court at all for grant of interim order on the day on which he proposed to move the Court. In such cases the opposite party would be unncessarily put to the trouble of coming to the Court and returning back without being in a position to oppose the petition for grant of an interim order against him. Besides, there is no guarantee, even if the petitioner files a writ petition that it would be taken up on the very day on which he wants his petition to be taken up by the Court. The opportunity contemplated under art. 226 (4) of the Constitution cannot depend upon such uncertainties. In the very nature of things, therefore, an opportunity can be said to be given to the party against whom an interim order is sought onlv when the Court issues notice calling upon the opposite party to appear before Court on a particular day for opposing the prayer of the petitioner for grant of the interim order. In the very nature of things, therefore, an opportunity can be said to be given to the party against whom an interim order is sought onlv when the Court issues notice calling upon the opposite party to appear before Court on a particular day for opposing the prayer of the petitioner for grant of the interim order. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that by merely serving copies of the petition on the opposite partv before filing the writ petition and intimating the said party that he would be moving the Court on a particular day for grant of the interim order, the requirements contemplated under Art. 226 (4) (b) are not satisfied. In these circumstances, no interim order can be granted as the requirements of Art 226 (4) (b) are not satisfied. Hence the normal procedure of issuing notice to the respondents to show cause as to why interim order as prayed for should not be granted to the petitioner, should be followed in this case. ( 4 ) IT is however, made clear that what I have staged above is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Art. 226, (5) of the Constitution if there are special circumstances justifying the grant of interim order without complying with the requirements contemplated by Art. 226 (4) of (a) and (b) of the Constitution. As no such prayer is made in this petition invoking Art. 226 (5) of the Constitution it is unnecessary for me to consider whether an ex-parte order could be granted in favour of the petitioner by dispensing with the requirements contemplated by Art. 226 (4) (a) and (b) of the Constitution. ( 5 ) HENCE, let this matter be posted for grant of interim order as prayed for by the petitioner after the respondents are served. --- *** --- .