ORDER B.K. Roy, J. 1. The Appellants herein are the Petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 854/2004, who have knocked the doors of this Constitutional Court to set aside the order as contained in Memo No. LFCS.2/92/Pt.-1/244-A issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Lakhimpur as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition with a further prayer to stay its operation. 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows as follows: The Executive Officer of Silchar Wholesale Co-operative Stores Limited, Silchar informed that as Silchar Co-operative has already deposited the value of P.D.S. items namely B.P.L. and Aptyodoya Rice for the months of December, 2003 and January, 2004 in respect of Rupaibali Co-operative Society and Silchar Wholesale Co-operative Store was allowed to lift them for those months due to untimely submission of the petition by the Secretary of Rupaibali Co-operative Society but now the Secretary of Rupaibali Co-operative Society will lift the P.D.S. items from February, 2004 onwards. 3. The learned Single Judge vide his order dated 10.2.2004 granted an interim stay of the operation of this order. 4. By the order under Appeal, this interim order for stay has been vacated observing inter alia as follows: i) In view of the fact that the Silchar Wholesale Co-operative Society had in the meantime filed an application stating that it had already deposited the money for the P.D.S. items for the months of December, 2003 and January, 2004 and thereby, it should be allowed to lift the said items for two months and an order was passed on 6.1.2004 allowing that prayer; ii) The record shows that the financial position of the applicant which at one point of time was not good, has improved which has raised his claim to lift the P.D.S. items on its own; iii) The later order has been passed after being fully satisfied that the financial health of the Society has improved and its ability to lift its P.D.S. items; iv) Admittedly, the Petitioner is an Agent of the Applicant Society and there will be serious doubt of his right to maintain this Writ petition; v) No good ground is found to allow to continue the interim order dated 10.2.2004. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that as the order impugned amounts to adjudicating the Writ Petition itself which course was impermissible, and thus, this appeal be admitted. 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that as the order impugned amounts to adjudicating the Writ Petition itself which course was impermissible, and thus, this appeal be admitted. 6. We do not see any force in this submission. This Court is bound to adjudicate though prima facie the issues raised by one of the other party at the time of vacating an interim order, which has the effect of allowing a writ petition without adjudication. 7. The learned Single Judge has recorded his findings which has not been challenged on merits by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The learned Single Judge has left open the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition. 8. We, thus, do not see any flaw in the order under appeal. 9. In the result, we dismiss this Appeal clarifying that these observations are tentative in nature and not final. Appeal dismissed.