JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner Union being aggrieved with the impugned Office Order dated 22.04.2021, whereby sub rule (iii) was inserted in Rule 8 of the NEEPCO Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules had assailed the same by way of WP(C) No. 367 of 2021, which is pending judgment before this Court. However, while the matter was situated thus, the respondent No. 2, issued the impugned notice dated 22.08.2022, by which the Supervisors and Executives of the respondent Corporation, were given 48 hours to withdraw their membership from the registered Trade Unions, in view of and as per the stipulation of Clause - 8(iii) in the NEEPCO CDA Rules, failing which appropriate action was to be taken against them as per the said Rules. The petitioner herein being aggrieved with the manner in which the impugned order was issued, when in fact, the hearing of the matter concerning Rule 8(iii) was concluding is before this Court by way of this instant writ application. 2. Apart from other submissions which have been advanced by Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Kharshiing, learned counsel for the petitioner on the colourable exercise of power by the respondent Corporation in inserting Rule 8(iii), the main contention is that the respondent Corporation, with a view to remove the entire basis of the earlier writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 367 of 2021, and render it infructuous, had issued the impugned order. It is prayed therefore that the impugned order being totally unwarranted and made with a view, to frustrate the challenge made to the insertion of Rule 8(iii) be set aside and quashed. 3. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent in reply submits that there is no legal bar to implement Rule 8(iii) and that the respondent Corporation was compelled to issue the notice, as it was necessary to negotiate with the Trade Unions on matters such as Provident Fund and others. It has also been argued that Rule 8(iii) is not a statutory rule and that its inclusion was necessary as all Office Bearers of the Trade Unions were non-workmen, who were holding the interest of other workmen and the Corporation to ransom. It has been lastly contended that this Court had not stayed the operation of Rule 8(iii) and as such, there was no illegality in issuing the impugned order/notice. 4. It has been lastly contended that this Court had not stayed the operation of Rule 8(iii) and as such, there was no illegality in issuing the impugned order/notice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the challenge to Rule 8(iii) is pending judgment before this Court and was reserved for judgment on 31.08.2022, on the conclusion of the hearing. The impugned order/notice dated 22.08.2022, from a bare perusal indicates the imposition of the said Rule 8(iii). The same is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience. 'NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (A Govt. of India Enterprise) N O T I C E Dated 22.08.2022 Reference is drawn to office order no. 04 dated 22.04.2021 wherein the Board of Directors in its 263rd Board Meeting held on 10.03.2021 had approved inclusion of Clause 8(iii) in the NEEPCO CDA Rules which restricts the employees governed by the CDA Rules to seek membership of any registered Trade Union or indulge in Trade Union activities. However, it has come to the notice of the Management that despite the laid down rules for Executives and Supervisors, it is observed that some of the Executives and Supervisors still continue to indulge in trade Union activities. In this regard, it was also requested to reconstitute the members of Trade Unions as per rule, however the same was not done which has affected discussions with the genuine workers. In view of above, it is once again directed that the employees (Executives and Supervisors) governed by the NEEPCO CDA Rules to withdraw from the membership of the Trade Unions within 48 hours and confirm the same, failing which action as deemed fit and proper shall be initiated as per CDA Rules. Sd/- (A.C Sharma) Deputy General Manager (HR) NEEPCO Ltd., Shillong Memo no. Pers/20/68/70/82/192/106696-704 Date: 22.08.2022 Copy to: 1. The GM (Tech) to CMD for kind information of CMD 2. The DGM (HR) to D(P) for kind information of D(P) 3. The Sr. ES to D(F) for kind information of D(F) 4. The GM (E/M) to D(T) for kind information of D(T) 5. All EDs for kind information 6. All HoPs for information 7. The GM (CA) for information 8. All HoDs for information. 9. The Office Bearer and the respective members of the Registered Trade Unions of NEEPCO for information and necessary action.' 5. The GM (E/M) to D(T) for kind information of D(T) 5. All EDs for kind information 6. All HoPs for information 7. The GM (CA) for information 8. All HoDs for information. 9. The Office Bearer and the respective members of the Registered Trade Unions of NEEPCO for information and necessary action.' 5. It is true as submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, that on the day the impugned notice was issued, WP(C) No. 367 of 2021 was in the final stages of hearing, as this Court in the said matter, by order dated 18.08.2022 had listed the same for further hearing on 23.08.2022. Therefore, it is not understood as to what extenuating circumstances existed on that day i.e., on 22.08.2022, which compelled the respondent Corporation to issue the impugned notice, knowing fully well that the matter was to be heard again on 23.08.2022. If the situation so demanded, nothing prevented the respondents from seeking leave of this Court to bring on record such circumstances which necessitated immediate action. 6. The only plausible deduction that can be gleaned out from the impugned notice and action of the respondents is that the same was done with a view to frustrate the adjudication of the legality of Rule 8(iii) by taking away the very basis which was in contention. 7. For the reasons stated above, though, there were no interim orders operating in WP(C) No. 367 of 2021, the action of the respondents is unjustified and improper in issuing the impugned notice, more so, in view of the fact that, the said matter was in the final stages and presently reserved for judgment. 8. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 22.08.2022 is set aside and quashed. 9. With this order, writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.