D. S. SINHA, J. M. PANCHAL, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Yatin Oza, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant, and Mr. Prashant G. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, at length and in detail. ( 2 ) BY means of instant Civil Application, the applicant prays that the ex parte interim order dated 18th February 2002 passed in Civil Application No. 1310 of 2002 be vacated. ( 3 ) UNDISPUTED material facts, so far as they are relevant, are these : ( 4 ) COPY of the Civil Application No. 4139 of 2002 was served on the learned counsel of the opposite party on 10th May 2002; that the application was moved in the Court on 10th May 2002 itself; that the application has not been disposed of; and it came up before the Court for disposal on 26th June 2002. ( 5 ) ATTENTION of the Court is drawn to the provisions of Clause (3) of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which provides that where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without - (A) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (B) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated. ( 6 ) ON the strength of the said provisions contained in Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the ex parte interim order dated 18th February 2002, passed in Civil Application No. 1310 of 2002, stands vacated with effect from 19th June 2002 inasmuch as the application for vacation of the ex parte interim order dated 18th February 2002 was not disposed of within the period prescribed by the Constitution. ( 7 ) COUNTERING the above submission, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the ex parte interim order dated 18th February 2002 still survives, and cannot be said to have stood vacated inasmuch as the interim order dated 18th February 2002 was passed in Civil Application No. 1310 of 2002 arising out of Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and proceedings of Letters Patent Appeal are not covered by the provisions contained in Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) THE Court has carefully scrutinised the provisions of Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is not persuaded to accept the submission made on behalf of the opposite party to the effect that the provisions of Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution do not apply to the proceedings arising out of the proceedings under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is to be remembered that the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arising out of a petition is a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is an intra-court appeal, and not an inter-court appeal. ( 9 ) THE proceedings of the inter-court appeal are, normally, governed and regulated by the statutory provisions conferring right of appeal and jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arising out of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is not at par with other statutory inter-court appeals. It is, indeed, continuation of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court hearing the intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arising out of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, ultimately, exercises the powers conferred upon it by Article 226 of the Constitution. It is, indeed, continuation of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court hearing the intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arising out of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, ultimately, exercises the powers conferred upon it by Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 10 ) THE language employed in Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that it is applicable to a writ petition under Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution as well as to any proceedings relating thereto. ( 11 ) INDISPUTABLY, the proceedings in appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arising out of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution emanate from a petition under Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution, and such proceedings are, therefore, clearly covered by the expression "any proceedings relating thereto" used in Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution, and on existence of the circumstances specified in Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution the provisions thereof shall be attracted in the matter of ex parte interim order passed against a party in the proceedings relating to and arising out of a petition under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, without furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and without giving such party an opportunity of being heard. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, the ex parte interim order dated 18th February 2002 was passed in Civil Application No. 1310 of 2002 in Letters Patent Appeal, which are proceedings in relation to and arising out of the petition under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, and it was passed without furnishing to the applicant copies of the application and the memo of the appeal; and before passing of the ex parte interim order the applicant had not been given an opportunity of being heard. ( 13 ) IT is not in dispute that the applicant made an application for vacation of the ex parte interim order dated 18th February 2002 on 10th May 2002, after serving copy thereof upon the learned counsel of the opposite party on 10th May 2002 itself, and it has still not been disposed of. ( 13 ) IT is not in dispute that the applicant made an application for vacation of the ex parte interim order dated 18th February 2002 on 10th May 2002, after serving copy thereof upon the learned counsel of the opposite party on 10th May 2002 itself, and it has still not been disposed of. In the first instance, the application was required to be disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of its making, i. e. 10th May 2002, but it could not have been disposed of on the last day of the period of two weeks inasmuch as the High Court was closed for summer vacation on that date, and it ought to have been disposed of before the expiry of the next date afterwards on which the High Court is reopened. The High Court reopened on 17th June 2002. Therefore, the outer limit for disposal of the application was 18th June 2002. But, the application for vacation of the ex parte order dated 18th February 2002 has not been disposed of within the period prescribed under Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the requirements prescribed in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution are satisfied and provision of Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution is attracted. ( 14 ) CONSEQUENTLY, as mandated in Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution, the ex parte interim order dated 18th February 2002 stands vacated, by operation of Constitutional law. ( 15 ) IN view of the fact that the ex parte interim order is held vacated, the prayer for its vacation becomes redundant. No order vacating the ex parte interim order dated 18th February 2002 is warranted, and the Civil Application No. 4139 of 2002 praying for vacation of the ex parte interim order is infructuous. It shall stand rejected accordingly. .