JUDGMENT : Jasti Chelameswar, J. These IAs are filed with the following prayers:- (a) Permit the Appellant to continue in Plot No. 1-10 till the fulfillment of the subsisting contract with the overseas buyer namely Global Minore Pte. Ltd, Singapore, pursuant to which Appellant has already exported 1,30,501 MT towards part performance of the contract, and under which supplies are to be completed by 31.07.2014, without payment of any penalty; (b) Restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action against the Appellant till the disposal of this Application; (c) Pass such other order/s as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Civil Appeal No. 11229 of 2013(arising out of Order dated 2.8.2012 of High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 11785 of 2012) was dismissed by an order dated 17.12.2013 and the applicant herein was not a party in W.P.(C) No. 11785 of 2012 before the High Court. 2. The Appellant was allotted by the first Respondent Trust a plot bearing No. 1-10 (D Group) measuring 5,500 Sq. m. for a period of 11 months from 01.11.2011 to 30.09.2012 for a licence fee of Rs. 100 per Sq. m. per month. 3. Pursuant to the order of the Orissa High Court dated 2nd August, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 11785 of 2012 against which C.A. No. 11229 of 2013 came to be filed, large number of notices were issued by the first Respondent terminating the licence of the various allottees of the plots. The validity of those notices was upheld by judgment of this Court in the above-mentioned appeal dated 17.12.2013. 4. The Appellant herein claims that he has a subsisting contractual obligation to export a certain quantity of iron ore. In view of the fact that he has not vacated the premises in question, the Respondents have been collecting a penalty @ Rs. 200 per square meter per month in addition to the agreed licence fee. 5. The Respondents though have invited bids for the grant of licence w.r.t. various plots, they have not invited bids for the plot in question. The Appellant, therefore, prays that it may be permitted to carry on its export operations in the plot in question till 31st July, 2014. 6. Heard learned Attorney General appearing for the Respondents. 7. 5. The Respondents though have invited bids for the grant of licence w.r.t. various plots, they have not invited bids for the plot in question. The Appellant, therefore, prays that it may be permitted to carry on its export operations in the plot in question till 31st July, 2014. 6. Heard learned Attorney General appearing for the Respondents. 7. The Respondents though did not dispute the fact that the lender call notice issued by them dated 24.1.2014 did not include the plot 1-10 but they explained that it was omitted because the Appellant has not yet surrendered vacant possession of the property and, therefore, it is not feasible to invite tenders for such a property which is pending litigation. 8. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate that it is open for the Respondents to invite tenders even with reference to plot 1-10 which is currently in occupation of the Appellant. It is open for the Appellant to participate in such tendering process. We further direct for a period of 10 weeks from today, the Respondents will permit the Appellant for utilising the property/plot in question for the purpose of exporting iron ore on payment of the licence fee and the penalty as was being paid by the Appellant (the details of which are already mentioned earlier). 9. Subject to the above directions, the Appellant shall surrender the vacant possession of the plot in question on or before the 2nd June, 2014. In the meanwhile, the Respondents shall not prevent the Appellant from carrying on his export activity subject, of course, to the Appellant complying with all other conditions either statutory or contractual. The IAs are disposed of accordingly.