JUDGMENT P. S. KAILASAM, J. ( 1 ) SPECIAL Leave Petition 4785 of 1980 ii filed by the Union of India against the Judgment of the Gauhati High court in C. R. No. 182 of 1980 dated 18/04/1980. Transfer Petition 21 of 1980 is by the State of Assam under Article 139-A (2) of the Constitution of India for transfer of 26 criminal miscellaneous cases pending before the Gauhati High court by 26 respondents for issue of a writ of habeas corpus for their release from detention. Transfer Petition 34 of 1980 under Article 139-A (2) is by the union of India for transfer of 4 Writ Petition i. e. Civil Rule 203 of 1980, civil Rule 182 of 1980, Civil Rule 192 of 1980 and Writ Appeal 9 of 1980 from the file of the Gauhati High court to some other High court. Connected with these matters are applications C. M. P. No. 1782 and C. M. P. No. 6976 of 1980 for stay of proceedings on the file of the High court and petitions by the respondents for vacation of interim stay granted by this court. ( 2 ) THE Special Leave Petition 4785 of 1980 and two Transfer Petitions 21 and 34 of 1980 arise out of the agitation that is carried on in assam regarding the foreigners issue and may be dealt with by a common order. ( 3 ) DUE to the disturbed conditions in Assam the President issued a proclamation dated 12/12/1979 in exercise of his powers under article 356 of the Constitution of India declaring that he was satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. The President issued Notification GSR-688 (E) dated 12/12/1979. In pursuance of the said proclamation on the same date, he issued GSR-689 (E) directing that all the functions of the government of Assam and all the powers vested in or enforceable by the government of the said State be exercisable by the governor of the State of Assam subject to powers of superintendence, direction and control by the President. Pursuant to the Presidential proclamation, the governor of Assam promulgated the assam Preventive Detention Ordinance (Ordinance 111 of 1980) which provided for detention of persons in certain cases and matters connected therewith. Pursuant to the Presidential proclamation, the governor of Assam promulgated the assam Preventive Detention Ordinance (Ordinance 111 of 1980) which provided for detention of persons in certain cases and matters connected therewith. The validity of the Presidential Notifications GSR-688 (E) and gsr-689 (E} and the Assam Preventive Detention Ordinance, 1980 is challenged by Jatin Goswami in Civil Rule 203 of 1980. ( 4 ) ON 5/04/1980 the government of Assam issued a notification under S. 3 of the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 declaring the Stateof Assam excluding Cachar District as disturbed areas for a period of two months from 6/04/1980. The government of Assam also issued a declaration under S. 3 of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) special Powers Act (Act 28 of 1958) dated 5/04/1980 declaring the area aforementioned as a disturbed area for the purposes of the said Act. ( 5 ) SHRI Inderjit Barua filed before the Gauhati High court Civil rule 182 of 1980 praying for the issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus against the notifications issued and to declare that the Assam Disturbed areas Act and Armed Forces (Aasam and Manipur) Special Powers Act are unconstitutional, void and inoperative. For identical reliefs Hem Kanta sharma filed Civil Rule 192 of 1980. Pending the disposal of the writ petition, Inderjit Barua prayed for stay of operation of the Gazette notification under the two enactments. ( 6 ) ON 7/04/1980 the Gauhati High court granted an interim stay of the operation of the notifications in Civil Rule 182 of 1980 The Union of India moved this court for grant of special leave against the stay granted by the Gauhati High court in Civil Rule 182 of 1980. This court on 16/04/1980 directed the High court to dispose of the stay application after hearing both parties on 18/04/1980. Pursuant to the orders of this court the matter was taken up by the Gauhati High court and final orders were passed on the stay petition modifying the earlier interim order dated 17/04/1980. The order runs as follows :accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned ex parte stay order dated 7/04/1980 shall be superseded by this order. The operation of S. 4 of the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 and of S. 4 (a) of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 (as amended in 1972), is hereby stayed. The order runs as follows :accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned ex parte stay order dated 7/04/1980 shall be superseded by this order. The operation of S. 4 of the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 and of S. 4 (a) of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 (as amended in 1972), is hereby stayed. The two impugned notifications will take effect, but no power shall be exercised under the provisions of Section 4 of the Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 and S. 4 (a) of the Armed forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 which are hereby stayed. Adequate precaution shall be taken to prevent abuse of the provisions of clauses (c) and (d) of S. 4 of the Armed Forces (Special powers) Act, 1958. ( 7 ) THUS while granting stay of the operation of S. 4 of the Assam disturbed Areas Act, 1955 and S. 4 (a) of the Armed Forces (Assam and manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 (as amended in 1972) was stayed, the interim stay in other respects was vacated. Inderjit Barua felt aggrieved against the order to the extent it vacated the order of interim stay and filed an appeal before a bench of the High court which is pending as appeal 9 of 1980. The Union of India and the State of Assam aggrieved by the order granting stay of operation of the provisions of the two Acts filed special Leave Petition 4785 of 1980. ( 8 ) THE Union of India by Transfer Petition 34 of 1980 has prayed for the transfer of four Writ Petition pending before the Gauhati High court to some other High court. The first writ petition is Civil Rule 203 of 1980 filed by Jatin Goswami challenging the validity of the Presidential Notification and the Assam Preventive Detention Ordinance 111 of 1980. The secondisgivilrulel82 of 1980, an application filed by Inderjit Barua questioning the validity of the two Acts Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 and Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act and the notifications issued thereon. The third writ petition is Civil Rule 192 of 1980 filed by Hem Kanta Sharma seeking for, the same reliefs as claimed incivil Rule 182 of 1980. The third writ petition is Civil Rule 192 of 1980 filed by Hem Kanta Sharma seeking for, the same reliefs as claimed incivil Rule 182 of 1980. The fourth is Writ Appeal 9 of 1980, filed by inderjit Barua against the order passed by single Judge of the Gauhati high court on 18/04/1980 vacating a part of the interim stay granted on 7/04/1980. ( 9 ) THE State of Assam has filed Transfer Petition 21 of 1980 for transfer to some other High court all the 26 Writ Petition filed by detenus against the order of detention pending before the Gauhati High court. The special leave and the two transfer petitions came up for hearing before this court on 12/05/1980 and this court granted interim ex parte stay of hearing of the four cases mentioned in Annx. a. to Transfer Petition 34 of 1980 and interim ex parte stay of hearing of the 26 Writ Petition referred to in Annx. a to Transfer Petition 21 of 1980. On receipt of notice the respondents filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition 1893 of 1980 in Transfer petition 21 of 1980 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition 7143 of 1980 in Transfer petition 34 of 1980 for vacating the interim stay granted by this court. ( 10 ) MR. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of two transfer petitions before the Vacation court, He submitted that the Vacation Judge is not empowered to take on file transfer petitions under Article 139-A (2) and dispose it of, and consequently no interim relief could be granted to the petitioners. An examination of the Supreme court Rules is necessary to determine the scope of the authority of a Vacation Judge of the Supreme court. The Supreme court Rules are made by the Supreme court in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Article 145 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling it to make rules. Order 11, Rule 6 of the supreme court Rules empowers the chief justice to appoint one or more judges to hear during summer vacation or winter holidays all matters of an urgent nature which under these rules may be heard by a judge sitting singly. Order 11, Rule 6 of the supreme court Rules empowers the chief justice to appoint one or more judges to hear during summer vacation or winter holidays all matters of an urgent nature which under these rules may be heard by a judge sitting singly. Order 11, Rule 6 enables the chief justice to appoint a Vacation judge to hear during summer vacation all matters of an urgent nature which under these rules may be heard by a judge sitting singly. Under Order VII, rule 4 during the vacation, the Vacation Judge sitting singly may in addition to exercising all the powers of a judge in Chambers, under these rules, exercise the powers of the court in relation to the matters specified in the sub-rules to Rule 4. It is seen from these rules that the powers of the Vacation Judge are those that are specified in the sub-rule in addition to the powers of a judge in Chambers. The several matters mentioned in sub-rules (1) to (7) to Rule 4 are important and may be extracted :order VII, Rule 4 :during the vacation, the Vacation Judge sitting singly may, in addition to exercising all the powers of a judge in Chambers under these rules, exercise the powers of the court in relation to the following matters, namely:- (1) Application for special leave to appeal in urgent cases where interim relief is prayed for subject to the condition that the Vacation Judge shall not decide such a petition if it raises a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution. (2) Applications for stay of execution of a decree or order or stay of proceedings in civil matters. (3) Application for transfer of cases under S. 406 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 ). (4) Applications for stay of proceedings in criminal matters. (5) Applications under Article 32 of the Constitution of an urgent nature which do not involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. (6) Issue of a rule nisi in urgent applications under Article 32 of the Constitution which involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. (7) Applications for disposal of an appeal in terms of a compromise petition. (6) Issue of a rule nisi in urgent applications under Article 32 of the Constitution which involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. (7) Applications for disposal of an appeal in terms of a compromise petition. ( 11 ) THE main contention of Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned counsel for the respondents is that while the rules specifically enable the Vacation judge to exercise the powers in relation to applications for transfer of cases under S. 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) no such power is conferred on the Vacation Judge in regard to applications for transfer under Article 139-A (2) of the Constitution. The power conferred on the Vacation Judge should be found in seven sub-rule of Rule 4. A reading of the rule makes it clear that the Vacation Judge has only limited power to dispose of appeals. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 4 empowers the court to dispose of the appeals in terms of compromise petitions. Contested appeals, there- fore, cannot be disposed of by the Vacation Judge. Sub-ruled) to Rule 4 empowers the court to dispose the application of for special leave to appeal in urgent cases, where interim relief is prayed for but that power is subject to the condition that the Vacation Judge shall not decide the petition which raises a substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution. Thus a petition for special leave cannot be finally disposed of if it involves a substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution. Shri K. Parasaran, the learned Solicitor-General submitted that sub-rule (3) though it mentions S. 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wide enough to cover all criminal cases of the nature sought to be transferred. He submitted that in any event sub-rules (2) and (4) are wide enough to cover all applications for stay of execution of proceedings in civil and criminal matters. The Supreme court Rules deal with Civil under order XV and special leave applications under Order XVI. Pauper appeals are dealt with under Order XVII. Part 11 (B) of the Supreme court Rules deals with criminal appeals. Order XXI deals with a special leave petition in criminal proceedings and criminal appeals. Order XXI, Rules 12 and 15 specify in what matters appeals can be preferred to this court. Pauper appeals are dealt with under Order XVII. Part 11 (B) of the Supreme court Rules deals with criminal appeals. Order XXI deals with a special leave petition in criminal proceedings and criminal appeals. Order XXI, Rules 12 and 15 specify in what matters appeals can be preferred to this court. Order XXXV in Part IV deals with application for enforcement of fundamental rights. Order XXXV, Rule I enables the Vacation Judge sitting singly to hear a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India if it does not raise substantial question of law. Rule 2 of Order XXXV enables the Vacation judge sitting singly to hear all interlocutory and miscellaneous petitions connected with the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. ( 12 ) ORDER XXXVI relates to applications for transfer of criminal proceedings under S. 406, Criminal Procedure Code while Order XXXVI-A under Part IV-A deals with application for transfer under clause (1) of Article 139-A (1) of the Constitution, and Order XXXVI-B with application for transfer under article 139-A (2) of the Constitution and S. 25 of the Code of Civil procedure. Orders XXXVI-A and XXXVI-B were introduced by G. S. R. 1024 and came into farce on 19/08/1978. Order XXXVI relating to transfer of criminal proceeding under S. 406 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 was introduced by G. S. R. 1697 dated 7/12/1977 and came into force on 17/12/1977. While power was conferred on thevacation court to deal with applications for transfer of cases under Section 406, Criminal Procedure Code on 17/12/1977 by introduction of sub-rule (3) to rule4 of Order VII by G. S. R. 169 7/12/1977, the power to deal with the application under Article 139-A (1) and 139-A (2) was not conferred on the Vacation Judge under Order VII, Rule 4. As the power to entertain application for transfer of cases under S. 406, Criminal Procedure Code is specifically conferred on the Vacation Judge and no such power is conferred on him in applications for transfer under Article 139-A (1) and 139-A (2) it is only proper to construe that Vacation Judge is not empowered to exercise powers relating to transfer applications under Article 139-A (1) and 139-A (2 ). ( 13 ) MR. ( 13 ) MR. K. Parasaran, learned Solicitor-General submitted that Section 406) Criminal Procedure Code is wide enough to include all criminal cases and it is, therefore, unnecessary to provide separately for transfer of cases under Article 139-A (1) and 139-A (2 ). S. 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Supreme court to transfer cases and appeals: when it appears to it that an order under this S. is expedient in the ends of justice, this court may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one high court to another High court or from a criminal court subordinate to one High court to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High court. S. 406 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) corresponds to S. 527 of 1898 Act (as amended in the year 1952 ). Under S. 527 as it stood before the substitution of the S. in 1952, the power to transfer from one High court to another or from a. court subordinate to one High court to a court subordinate to another High court could be exercised only by the provincial government. After the amendment to the S. in 1952 the power under S. 527 to transfer the case vested with the Supreme court. The provisions of Ch. XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) deal with the transfer of criminal cases. The Ch. empowers the Supreme court, the High court and the Sessions court to transfer cases and appeals from one subordinate court to another. Ch. XXXI in general and S. 406 in particular deal only with criminal cases or appeals which are pending in the criminal courts under the Criminal procedure Code. Article 139-A (1) and Article 139-A (2) of the Constitution were introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. Article 139-A (2) runs as follows:the Supreme court may, if it deems expedient so to do for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High court to another High court. Article 139-A (1) and Article 139-A (2) of the Constitution were introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. Article 139-A (2) runs as follows:the Supreme court may, if it deems expedient so to do for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High court to another High court. ARTICLE 139 of the Constitution reads as follows :conferment on the Supreme court of powers to issue certain writs.- parliament may by law confer on the Supreme court power to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantee and certiorari or any of them) for any purposes other than those mentioned in clause (2) of article 32. Article 139-A (2) when it speaks of transfer of any appeal or other proceedings pending before any High court it may include criminal cases and appeals and other proceedings pending before the High court. But reading Article 139-A (2) in the context, it is clear that it not only covers criminal cases but also other cases including writs pending in the High courts. All writs are not in the nature of criminal proceedings and could not be transferred under S. 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 14 ) THIS court in C. I. T. , Bombay v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas held that there is no ground for restricting the expression "civil proceeding" only to those proceedings which arise out of civil suits or proceedings which are tried as civil suits, nor is there any rational basis for excluding from its purview proceedings instituted and tried in the High court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, where the aggrieved party seeks relief against infringement of civil rights by authorities. The court further held that-A civil proceeding is therefore one in which a person seeks to enforce by appropriate relief the alleged infringement of his civil rights against another person or the State) and which if the claim is proved would result in the declaration express or implied of the right claimed and relief such as payment of debt, damages, compensation, delivery of specific property, enforcement of personal rights, determination of status etc. ( 15 ) THIS court again stated : by a petition for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, extraordinary jurisdiction of the High court to issue high prerogative writs granting relief in special cases to persons aggrieved by the exercise of authority statutory, or otherwise by public officers or authorities is invoked. This jurisdiction is undoubtedly special and exclusive but on that account the nature of the proceeding in which it is exercised is not altered. From the decision Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay it will be seen that the proceedings before the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution may fall under civil proceedings and may not be in the nature of criminal proceedings liable to transfer under S. 406 of the Code of criminal Procedure. ( 16 ) IN Transfer Petition 34 of 1980 the Union of India seeks to transfer four Writ Petition wherein the notification of the President, the validity of S. 3 and Section 4 of the Assam Disturbed Areas Act and S. 4 (a) of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, the notification issued therein, the validity of Assam Preventive Detention Ordinance, 1980 (III of 1980) are sought to be challenged. The proceedings in the four Writ Petition before the Gauhati High court cannot be said to be criminal in nature, falling under S. 406, Crpc. Even proceedings for issue of a writ of habeas corpus may not be said to be purely criminal in nature. No doubt S. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 empowered the High courts of Calcutta) Madras and Bombay to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus. After 1923, S. 491, Crpc was amended and the power was conferred on all the other High courts. After coming into force of Article 226, all the High courts have powers to issue writ of habeas corpus. S. 491, Criminal Procedure Code was ultimately omitted in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. Though the power to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus was contained in S. 49l, Crpc, and the proceeding under S. 491, Criminal Procedure Code was considered as criminal in nature, a writ of habeas corpus after coming into force of the Constitution is a much larger and wider remedy which is enshrined as a fundamental right and could be enforced in the High courts and the Supreme court. Thus the application for transfer of the four Writ Petition pending before the Gauhati high court would more appropriately fall under Article 139-A (2) and not under S. 406, Crpc. In this view it has to be concluded that thevacation court has no power to deal with an application for transfer under article 139-A (2) of the Constitution. The transfer petition will be listed before a bench of this court on reopening. ( 17 ) MR. K. Parasaran, the learned Solicitor-General submitted that even though it is held that the vacation court is not empowered to deal with the two transfer applications, the court has power to stay the proceedings in the Gauhati High court pending disposal of the transfer applications in this court. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied on sub-rules (2) and (4) to Rule 4 of Order VII of the Supreme court rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 confers power on the vacation court to exercise powers in regard to application for stay of execution of a decree or order or stay of proceedings in civil matters. Similarly sub-rule (4) to rule 4 empowers the vacation court to exercise powers over applications for stay of proceedings in criminal matters. These two sub-rules make it clear that the vacation court can grant stay of civil and criminal proceedings. This power would include passing of appropriate stay orders in matters which the vacation court cannot finally dispose of. For instance an order of stay can be passed in a Civil or a criminal appeal or a review petition, pending before the court, though the Civil or criminal appeal or review petition cannot be finally disposed of by the vacation court. In a petition seeking for review of a judgment of this court, the matter may relate to civil or criminal proceedings and sub-rules (2) and (4) of Rule 4 would enable the vacation court to grant a stay. This court in Review Application 29 of 1977 in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. v. Municipal Board, Azamgarh directed issue of a show-cause notice to the respondent and granted ex parte stay on 13/05/1977. Again in Civil (720 of 1976) filed under S. 38 of the advocates Act which requires to be posted for preliminary hearing, the vacation court granted ex parte stay on 9/07/1976. In Review Petition 104 of 1980, Col. v. Municipal Board, Azamgarh directed issue of a show-cause notice to the respondent and granted ex parte stay on 13/05/1977. Again in Civil (720 of 1976) filed under S. 38 of the advocates Act which requires to be posted for preliminary hearing, the vacation court granted ex parte stay on 9/07/1976. In Review Petition 104 of 1980, Col. Avtar Singh Sckhon v. Union of India, this court granted stay of proceedings on 13/05/1980 pending disposal of the review petition. Though the vacation court is not competent to dispose of finally a transfer application under Article 139-A (2) of the Constitution there could be no doubt that pending disposal of the transfer petition by this court, the vacation court is empowered to grant stay of proceedings before the Gauhati high court. ( 18 ) THE question that remains to be considered is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the proceedings before the Gauhati High court should be stayed pending disposal of the two transfer petitions. The question whether an order of stay of proceedings should be granted in a particular case would depend upon the facts of the case. The court must be satisfied that there is sufficient cause for granting stay of proceedings, and that taking into account the balance of convenience such an order is expedient. In Transfer Petition 21 of 1980 preferred by the government of Assam, stay of twenty-six petitions for the issue of writs of habeas corpus against their order of detention is sought to be stayed. The detenus are in jail and the learned Solicitor-General himself was rightly hesitant in asking for stay of proceedings in the habeas corpus petitions if the transfer petitions cannot be heard before the reopening of the court. The grant of stay of proceedings would result in the detenus being kept in custody without their cases being heard for about two months till the Supreme court reopens on 21/07/1980. On the facts of the case, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for directing the stay of the hearing of the habeas corpus petitions pending disposal of the transfer petitions. The difficulty complained of by thestate is that the State of Assam is in a disturbed condition with feelings running high, amongst the citizens and that there is absence of congenial atmosphere for an impartial trial. The difficulty complained of by thestate is that the State of Assam is in a disturbed condition with feelings running high, amongst the citizens and that there is absence of congenial atmosphere for an impartial trial. The lower court has also found that the conditions are disturbed. But the State itself very fairly stated that the learned Judges of the Gauhati High court are making every endeavour to be fair. Though there is an amount of tension prevailing in Gauhati, there is no doubt the High court will do everything possible to assure a peaceful trial. The hostility of a S. of the Bar and Resolution of certain members of the Judiciary cannot be taken as rendering a fair trial impossible. It has been pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the learned Judges of gauhati High court had summoned only those detenus whose cases were to be taken up for trial for the day. As the hearing of the habeas corpus petitions cannot be postponed till the reopening of this court and as it is clear that the Judges of the Gauhati High court are trying their best to have a peaceful and undisturbed hearing in the prevailing circumstances, it will not be expedient to order the stay of the hearing of the habeas corpus petitions. The High court will consider whether the presence of the detenus during the hearing is necessary. If it is satisfied that their presence is necessary it will direct the production of only those detenus whose petitions are likely to be heard on that day. There is no sufficient cause for granting stay of the hearing of habeas corpus petitions. ( 19 ) IN Transfer Petition 34 of 1980 filed by the Union of India stay of proceedings of four Writ Petition pending before the Gauhati High court is prayed for. One of the Writ Petition is Civil Rule 203 of 1980 filed by jatin Goswami questioning the validity of the notifications issued by the president and the validity of the Preventive Detention Ordinance. This petition is ripe for hearing and the decision in the petition is likely to have a bearing on the habeas corpus petitions. It is desirable that the hearing of the petition is not postponed. In the circumstances, no sufficient cause for stay of the hearing of Civil Rule 203 of 1980 is made out. This petition is ripe for hearing and the decision in the petition is likely to have a bearing on the habeas corpus petitions. It is desirable that the hearing of the petition is not postponed. In the circumstances, no sufficient cause for stay of the hearing of Civil Rule 203 of 1980 is made out. The High court will proceed with the hearing of Civil Rule 203 of 1980. The petition to vacate the stay is allowed and the interim stay granted in this matter is vacated. ( 20 ) CIVIL Rule 182 of 1980 which is filed by Inderjit Baruah and Civil rule 192 of 1980 by Hem Kanta Sharma challenge the validity of the provisions of the Assam Disturbed Areas Act and the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act and the notifications issued thereunder. The petition for stay of the operation of the certain provisions of the two enactments have been partly ordered and aggrieved by the decision of the court in the stay petition insofar as it went against him Inderjit Baruah has preferred an appeal, Writ Appeal 9 of 1980, which is pending before a bench of the Gauhati High court. Against that part of the order which went against the government the government has filed special leave petition 4785 of 1980 before this court. Civil Rule 182 of 1980 was ripe for hearing and it is stated that it would be disposed of without any further delay. It is necessary that Civil Rule 182 of 1980 and Civil Rule 192 of 1980 are disposed of without any further delay. By the court disposing (?f the main writ petition the necessity for deciding the appeal against the stay order can be avoided. In the circumstances, it is not expedient to grant stay of the proceedings in Civil Rules 182 and 192 of 1980 before the High court. The petitions for vacating the stay granted by this court in Civil Rules 182 and 192 of 1980 are allowed and the interim stay granted vacated. ( 21 ) THE last of the cases that is sought, to be stayed by the Union ofindia pending disposal of Transfer Petition 34 of 1980 is Writ Appeal 9 of. 1980 filed by Inderjit Baruah against the order passed by the single Judge on 18/04/1980 insofar as it vacated the interim stay granted on 7/04/1980. ( 21 ) THE last of the cases that is sought, to be stayed by the Union ofindia pending disposal of Transfer Petition 34 of 1980 is Writ Appeal 9 of. 1980 filed by Inderjit Baruah against the order passed by the single Judge on 18/04/1980 insofar as it vacated the interim stay granted on 7/04/1980. It is expected that the main Writ Petition) Civil Rule 182 and Civil rule 192 of 1980) will be disposed of early by the Gauhati High court. When the main Writ Petition are disposed of, this appeal against the interim order would become infructuous. It is also seen that against a part of the interim order dated 18/04/1980 the government has also sought special leave to appeal from this court. The decision in the Writ Appeal 9 of 1980 the Gauhati High court would be irrelevant if the main Writ Petition are disposed of. In the circumstances) it is expedient that the proceedings in writ Appeal 9 of 1980 before the bench of the Gauhati High court should be stayed pending disposal of Transfer Petition 34 of 1980 filed by the Union of india. The interim stay granted in the matter is made absolute and the petition for vacating the stay filed by the respondent is dismissed. ( 22 ) IN the result, the interim stay of the hearing of the petitions of writ of habeas corpus filed by the twenty-six respondents granted by this court pending disposal of Transfer Petition 21 of 1980 filed by the government of Assam, is vacated. Pending Transfer Petition 34 of 1980, the Writ Appeal 9 of 1980 pending before a bench of the Gauhati high court is stayed. The petition for stay of other Writ Petition. Civil rule 203 of 1980, Civil Rule 182 of 1980 and Civil Rule 192 of 1980, is dismissed. ( 23 ) SPECIAL Leave Petition 4785 of 1980 remains to be considered. In this petition the Union of India and the State of Assam have prayed for special leave to appeal against the order dated 18/04/1980 passed by the gauhati High court in Civil Rule 182 of 1980 wherein the court stayed the operation of S. 4 (a) of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special powers Act, 1958, as amended in 1972 pending disposal of Civil Rule 182 of 1980. As already noticed against that part of the same order, which went against him, Inderjit Baruah has filed Writ Appeal 9 of 1980 which is pending before a bench of the Gauhati High court. The hearing of the appeal has been stayed. The stay sought for by the Union of India of the hearing of Civil Rules 182 and 192 of 1980 has been refused and it is expected that the main writ petitions will be disposed of early. Special leave against an interim order pending disposal of a writ petition is not normally granted by this court. In this matter, it is seen that the main writ petition is likely to be disposed of shortly. Admitting the special leave petition against a part of the order, and granting stay of hearing of the main Writ Petition is not likely to facilitate an early decision of the matter. Apart from the reluctance of this court in interfering with interim orders) before granting an interim order against the stay of the operation of the provisions of the two Acts granted by the High court, this court will have to be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for doing so. It is neither desirable nor expedient to do so when the main Writ Petition are likely to be disposed of early. The respondents have not only challenged the constitutional validity of the two Acts but also questioned on the ground that the impugned Acts conferred naked and arbitrary powers on the authorities without guidance and that no reasonable procedure has been provided for before depriving the citizen of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ petitions raise substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the constitution, and it will be inexpedient to grant special leave against a part of an interim order pending disposal of the Writ Petition which will finallydispose of all contentions of the parties. In the circumstances the petition for special leave to appeal will have to be dismissed. The dismissal of the special leave petition will not, in any way, affect the right of the government in questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Gauhati High court in writ Petition on all grounds that are open to them in law. In the circumstances the petition for special leave to appeal will have to be dismissed. The dismissal of the special leave petition will not, in any way, affect the right of the government in questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Gauhati High court in writ Petition on all grounds that are open to them in law. ( 24 ) IN this view of the matter it is unnecessary to consider the questions raised by both the parties as to whether an appeal lies under the letters patent against an order of the nature passed in the stay petition. ( 25 ) IN the result, the two Transfer Petitions 21 of 1980 and 34 of 1980 will be placed before the court for disposal on the reopening. The petitions for stay of proceedings before the Gauhati High court pending disposal of transfer Petition 21 of 1980 is dismissed. The petition for stay of Civil rules 203 of 1980, 182 of 1980 and 192 of 1980 on the file of the High court is dismissed. There will be stay of hearing of Writ Appeal 9 of 1980 before the Letters Patent bench of the Gauhati High court pending disposal of transfer Petition 34 of 1980. The impugned notifications are confined to the State of Assam, excluding North Cachar Hill Districts and the order of stay granted by the Gauhati High court is confined only to the area specified in the schedule to the notification.