JUDGMENT : C.K. Thakker, J. Admitted. Mr. Solanki appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up to day for final hearing. This appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5363 of 1997 dated September 11, 1997. 2. The appellants are original respondents and the respondent is original petitioner. The petitioner (respondent herein) appeared at T.Y. B. Sc. Examination (Microbiology) in May 1996. It was the case of the authority that there was some tampering of marks in respect of Seat No. 1954 of the petitioner. She was, therefore, called upon to submit her explanation and ultimately a notification was issued on June 26, 1997 debarring the petitioner from appearing at any examination for a period of one year. The said action was challenged by filing the above petition. 3. When the petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, rule was issued. On interim relief the following direction was issued. "It is, therefore, directed by way of interim relief that the petitioner's result of T.Y.B.Sc. should be announced on the basis of the marks secured by her in the subjects and mark- sheet of the result will be issued to her within a week from today." 4. In our view, such a course ought not to have been adopted by the learned Single Judge, when the main matter was pending. Virtually, this is the final relief, which could be granted at the time of disposal of the petition. 5. Mr. Solanki, no doubt, has submitted that when at inter locutory stage such prayer is granted, it would be subject to the final result of the petition. There cannot be two opinions about it. At the same time, so far as relief is concerned, it is the final relief. Such a relief should not be granted at admission stage. This Practice is deprecated by the Apex Court in a number of decisions. There cannot be two opinions about it. At the same time, so far as relief is concerned, it is the final relief. Such a relief should not be granted at admission stage. This Practice is deprecated by the Apex Court in a number of decisions. In Bank of Maharashtra v. Race Shipping and Transport Company Private Limited and Anr., AIR 1995 SC 1368 , the Supreme Court stated : "Time and again this Court depreciated the Practice of granting interim order which practically given the principal result sought in the petition for no better reason that the prima facie case has been made out without being concerned about the balance of evidence, the public interest and a host of other consideration." In our opinion the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court squarely applies to the present case also. 6. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has committed an error of law in granting relief at the time of issuance of rule. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge granting interim is quashed and set aside. So far as rule is concerned, the order stands. We are told at the bar that the main matter is fixed for final hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to request the learned Single Judge to expeditiously dispose of the matter. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. We may observe that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and we are not expressing any opinion one way or the other. The appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.