JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.5.2006 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3177/2001 rejecting the prayer for stay. 2. An interim order of stay had been passed earlier on 5.7.2001 to the effect that "if the letter of intent has not been issued, it shall not be issued till final disposal of the stay application. The order however was vacated on 16.5.2005. Against the stay vacating order, the appellant filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 883/2005. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench observed that if the appellant has any reason to infer that vacating the interim order is ultimately going to cause clear prejudice to it, it may approach the learned Single Judge and impress upon him to grant interim relief. The appellant thereafter filed fresh application for stay which was rejected by the impugned order. 3. Respondent No. 5 has filed caveat and the counsel sought to challenge the maintainability of the appeal against an interim order. He cited certain judgments. We do not wish to go into the larger questions. We may however, observe that where some rights of the parties have been finally determined by an interim order, appeal may be maintainable. In the instant case, the order does not determine the rights of the parties. May be, after stay is vacated, letter of intent is issued in favour of the respondents, but then that will be clearly subject to result of the writ petition. The appellant cannot claim any vested right for grant of distributorship, it can only claim right of consideration. Besides, if we entertain this appeal we will have to go into the gamut of the dispute to find out prima facie case. The writ petition is pending and it would not be proper to deal with the merit of the case at this stage. The learned Single Judge vacated the stay on 16.5.2005 with which the Division Bench did not interfere. No doubt the appellant was granted liberty to file fresh application but a fresh application could be filed only on fresh facts. 4. All said and done, the fact remains, as observed above, that grant of distributorship will be subject to result of the writ petition. This observation, in our view, protects the interest of the appellant for the present. 5. 4. All said and done, the fact remains, as observed above, that grant of distributorship will be subject to result of the writ petition. This observation, in our view, protects the interest of the appellant for the present. 5. We do not find any ground to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******