ORDER : 1. We have heard Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.D. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Nehal Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Vrunda Shah, learned AGP appearing for the State respondent No. 2. 2. Respondent No. 1 preferred Special Civil Application No. 3238 of 2011 claiming relief against the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation with regard to settlement of dues with respect to an allotment made in its favour. The learned Single Judge by order dated 09.03.2011 passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo and further that until the returnable date i.e. 28.03.2011, no steps for evicting the petitioners would be taken. The order dated 09.03.2011 is reproduced below: “Heard Mr. Sunit Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner. He has submitted that at the time when the letter of allotment was issued, condition for payment was that the entire payment must be made in 12 equal installments. The said condition was coupled with the benefit of 25% concession. However, the petitioner company had requested that the company may be allowed to make the payment in 40 installments instead of 12 equal installments. In response to the said request, the respondent-Corporation had informed the petitioner company that the 25% concession would stand withdrawn in view of the modified proposal/request by the petitioner company. Apropos the said difference between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation, learned counsel for the petitioner company has submitted that the petitioner does not insist for 40 installments and is ready to make payment within 12 equal installments, as per the original schedule, if the GIDC also continues the original proposition of granting 25% concession in the price of land. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the respondent-GIDC has conveyed its agreement in principal with regard to four separate agreements, the only unresolved issue between the petitioner company and the respondent GIDC is about 25% concession in land price and number of installments. He has submitted hat the petitioner company will make payment within 12 equal installments. Considering the said submission, issue Notice returnable on 28.3.2011. Direct service is permitted. On condition that the parties will maintain status-quo, it is directed that until returnable date, any steps of evicting the petitioner may not be taken.” 3. He has submitted hat the petitioner company will make payment within 12 equal installments. Considering the said submission, issue Notice returnable on 28.3.2011. Direct service is permitted. On condition that the parties will maintain status-quo, it is directed that until returnable date, any steps of evicting the petitioner may not be taken.” 3. Later on, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge by another order dated 30.07.2012 modified the earlier order dated 09.03.2011 and after recording the respective contentions and the necessary facts, the learned Single Judge again continued the order of status-quo further restraining the petitioner not to alienate or transfer the property in question and also to make the due payment in 12 months after receiving the benefit of 25% discount. Said order dated 30.07.2012 is reproduced below: “Heard Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Alkesh N Shah, learned AGP, for respondent no. 1. 1. The issue involved in present petition as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as to whether the respondents is entitled to withdraw the concession which was offered at the time when the contract was executed between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision passed in case of Kishorkumar Prabhudas Tanna and Another vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary and Others, 2009 (1) GLR 683 and the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on decision dated 22.01.2009 passed by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application No. 22102 of 2007. In view of the contentions raised by both the parties. Rule. 2. So far as the interim relief is concerned it is necessary to take into account the relief prayed by the petitioner which reads thus: (a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of declaration or writ in nature of declaration or any appropriate writ, order or direction holding and declaring that the respondents are not entitle to withdraw 25% concessions granted towards the total considerations for Plot No. D-II/12A, D-II/13 and D-II/4 Dehej-II Industrial Estate. (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions directing the Respondents to issue separate agreements for each plots without insisting payment of 25% concession granted earlier towards total considerations of the said plots. (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions directing the Respondents to issue separate agreements for each plots without insisting payment of 25% concession granted earlier towards total considerations of the said plots. (c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions directing the Respondents to consider and grant 40 quarterly installments on balance consideration of the said plots after deducting an amount of concession of 25%, with two years moratorium including payment of interest in eight quarterly installments instead of nos. 12 and be further pleased to direct to extend the period of payment of balance amount. In Para 12 (e) the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief: (e) That pending hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of notice dated 25.11.2010 at Annexure-AA to this petition and be further pleased to restrain the respondent from pursuing demand of Rs. 23,71,69,645/- within 3 days made vide letter dated 04.03.2011. 3. In this context, it is also necessary to note that on 9th March 2011 the below mentioned order was passed: “On condition that the parties will maintain status-quo, it is directed that until returnable date, any steps of evicting the petitioner may not be taken.” 4. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the possession of the plot in question is with the petitioner since long time. It is claimed that actually, the possession of the plot in question with the petitioner was even prior to the date of present petition. It is also claimed that the petitioner has completed substantial construction of manufacturing unit on the plot in question before the impugned decision and also before the petition came to be filed. The said submissions are not disputed by the respondent corporation. 5. In the light of aforesaid statement, it is clear that the possession of the plot is with petitioner before the date on which the petition came to be filed. It is also clear that the order dated 9th March, 2011 granted by this Hon’ble court, has been in operation, since about 16 months. 6. 5. In the light of aforesaid statement, it is clear that the possession of the plot is with petitioner before the date on which the petition came to be filed. It is also clear that the order dated 9th March, 2011 granted by this Hon’ble court, has been in operation, since about 16 months. 6. Therefore, so far as the petitioner’s request for interim relief is concerned, in modification of the said order, it is directed that the petitioner as well as respondent shall maintain status-quo. The petitioner will not alinate or transfer the property in question in any manner whatsoever, and the petitioner will make payment of the entire amount as demanded by the respondents. The allotment, occupancy and possession of the plot in question, in the hands of the petitioner, will be subject to final order passed in this petition. The construction and usage after and pursuant to and during the pendency of this petition will not create any right or equity in favour of the present petitioner. The order is passed in the light of the petitioner’s submission, that contract was executed between the parties and the respondent corporation handed over the plot to the petitioner before the date of impugned decision and before the date on which the petition came to be filed.” 4. Apparently the original writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) did not make the payments as assured by it before the learned Single Judge. The GIDC moved an application being Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 praying for vacating the interim order dated 30.07.2012 and for other ancillary reliefs for initiating actions under Order-39, Rule-2A of the Code of Civil Procedure etc. The reliefs as claimed in the stay vacation application are reproduced below: “(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders to vacate injunction order dated 30.07.2012 passed in Special Civil Application N. 3238 of 2011 at Annexure-A to the extent it prevents the applicants from taking action and directions to maintain status quo, and further be pleased to reject said main petition. (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders and/or directions against Opponent No. 1 and its directors for committing breach of injunction order dated 30.07.2012 by imposing punishment in exercise of powers under Order-39, Rule-2A of Civil Procedure Code and under Article 215 of Constitution of India. (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders and/or directions against Opponent No. 1 and its directors for committing breach of injunction order dated 30.07.2012 by imposing punishment in exercise of powers under Order-39, Rule-2A of Civil Procedure Code and under Article 215 of Constitution of India. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this application, implementation, execution and operation of directions contained in para-6 of interim order dated 30.07.2012 be stayed only in respect of applicants maintaining status quo is concerned and applicants be permitted to take action for recovery of possession of all the 4 plots being Plot numbers D-II/4, D-II/12, D-II/12/A and D-II/13 situated at Dahej-II Industrial Estate, District Bharuch. (D) Any other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be granted.” 5. On this application for vacating the interim relief, the impugned order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.12.2020. By the said order, the learned Single Judge in order to test the bona-fide of the writ petitioner required it to deposit 25% of the alleged outstanding amount of Rs. 114 Crores which according to the GIDC was Rs. 127 Crores, but nevertheless the learned Single Judge directed that 25% of Rs. 114 Crores would be deposited on or before 21.01.2021. On the said date the matter was to be listed. The learned Single Judge also provided that in case the amount is not so deposited then the injunction available to the petitioner would stand vacated automatically without further order being required. The said order as it reads is reproduced below: “1. After substantial arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that to show the bona-fides of the petitioner, the petitioner is willing to deposit 25% amount of Rs. 114 Crores, which is according to the petitioner, outstanding amount as per the OTS Scheme. However, the said amount is disputed by the GIDC and they have submitted that the outstanding amount is Rs. 127 Crores as per the OTS. It is also contended that the petitioner is not entitled for the OTS Scheme. It is also contended that they are objecting the said proposal and the injunction in favour of the petitioner is required to be vacated. 2. 127 Crores as per the OTS. It is also contended that the petitioner is not entitled for the OTS Scheme. It is also contended that they are objecting the said proposal and the injunction in favour of the petitioner is required to be vacated. 2. However, considering the case on hand, when the petitioner is in possession of the property for the last 10 years and they want to show their bona-fides, let the matter be listed on 21.1.2021. S.O. To 21.1.2021. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall deposit 25% amount of Rs. 114 Crores. 3. It is clarified that learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has made above statement upon instructions of Mr. Shailesh R. Patel, Managing Director, of the petitioner company. 4. It is needless to say that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited by the petitioner, then the injunction available to the petitioner stands vacated automatically and no further order will be required.” 6. It is this order which is assailed in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Shri Shelat, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have vacated the interim order in the facts of the case that the writ petitioner having taken advantage of the assurance given and having not honoured it for more than 8 years did not deserve any further indulgence and there was no justification for the learned Single to have modified the earlier interim order which was passed on an undertaking/assurance given by the writ petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Shri Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Court may not interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as it is only an interlocutory order to test the bona-fide of the writ petitioner and as the matter is already fixed for 21.01.2021, the same may be heard on merits itself of the main matter or of the Civil Application praying for vacation of interim order. 9. 9. There is no doubt that the learned Single Judge could have modified the interim order in appropriate cases under given circumstances, however, as the petitioner had himself not honoured his own commitments made in the year 2011-12, granting an indulgence at this stage may not be in the best interest of the parties and as such, what would be appropraite is that the learned Single Judge ought to have either rejected the Civil Application for vacating the interim order or ought to have vacated the interim order. The further modification of the order may not be a proper exercise. Since the main matter is not before us and is to be heard by the learned Single Judge along with the pending applications, we feel it appropriate that the impugned order dated 22.12.2020 may unnecessary create further complications for the appellant and as such, we set aside the said order which will also relieve the burden of the petitioner of being forced to deposit 25% of Rs. 114 Crores and the matter may now be heard on its own merits on the date fixed. As the matter requires to be thrashed out on merits and considering its pendency, we direct the Registry to list the Special Civil Application on top of the Board before the appropriate Court seized of such matters on the date fixed i.e. 21.01.2021. Learned counsels for both the parties have assured that they would not seek unnecessary or undue adjournments but would cooperate in the hearing of the matter on the said date which would be in the interest of both the parties. 10. The appeal stands allowed as above. Consequently, the Civil Application stands disposed of.