JUDGMENT S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - In this petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs: "i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the impugned order in DR/DVG/106/APPEAL/01/2022-23 dated 03.08.2022 at Annexure-A p0assed by the Respondent No.1 and grant stay of order dated 18.04.2022 at Annexure-B Kra Sam.Sani31/Daava/29(C)(8)(B)(D)/C.R.11/2021-22 by allowing the IA under Section 106 of Act of 1959 filed by the petitioner at Annexure-D. ii) Issue a writ or an Order quashing the Order dated 18/04/2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-B) Kra Sam.Sani31/Daava/29(C)(8)(B)(D)/C.R.11/2021-22. iii) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents. Perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the materials on record, learned counsel invites my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 03.08.2022, in order to point out that the said order passed by respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority declining/refusing to grant stay in favour of the petitioners is a laconic, non-speaking order without assigning any cogent or valid reasons as to why interim order sought by the petitioner should not be granted in his favour. 4. In this context, reliance may be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhavani Vs. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies reported in (2015 3 Kant LJ 186 in order to contend that the respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority committed an error in coming to the conclusion that granting of interim order of stay in favour of the petitioners would tantamount to allowing the main appeal itself and consequently, impugned order passed by respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Before adverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is relevant to state that in Bhavani's case referred to supra under identical circumstances, this Court held as under: "4. The Deputy Registrar has proceeded wrongly holding that grant of interim order would amount to granting the main relief. 6. Before adverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is relevant to state that in Bhavani's case referred to supra under identical circumstances, this Court held as under: "4. The Deputy Registrar has proceeded wrongly holding that grant of interim order would amount to granting the main relief. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has not appreciated the prima facie case made out by the petitioners. Indeed it is contended by the learned Senior counsel that if a case is made out showing any error or illegality in the order passed by an original Authority, the Appellate Authority while admitting the matter for consideration has to grant an order of stay as otherwise the disqualification order would come into effect and the petitioners would be deprived from exercising their duties and functions as Directors. In such circumstances, appropriate orders to be passed in the instant case is to set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies and remit the matter for fresh consideration. 5. Until fresh order is passed there shall be an interim order of stay of the operation of the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies is directed to consider the applications filed by the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders on the applications filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible or on the main matter itself depending on expediency and convenience." 7. Though in the said case, this Court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and granted an order of stay and remitted the matter for consideration of the appeal afresh, having regard to the fact that the State is the only respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions urged by the parties, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 03.08.2022 and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority with a direction to dispose of the main appeal itself as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that till disposal of the appeal by respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority, the order dated 18.04.2022 at Annexure-B passed by respondent No.2, which is impugned in the appeal before respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority preferred by the petitioner shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal. 8. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.