ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25.04.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5883 of 2023, whereby, the learned Single Judge has refused to grant any interim relief in favour of the present appellant - original petitioner. The learned Single Judge has also observed that let reply be filed by respondent No.1-University before the next date of hearing. 2. Heard Mr.Rajendra Patel, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr.Anand Gogia, learned advocate with Ms.Kajal Kalwani, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. Mr.Rajendra Patel, learned advocate for the appellant at the outset, has referred to the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the main petition at page 55 to 60 of the compilation. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that respondent No.5 herein i.e. Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) has submitted a report against the petitioner on the basis of which, now respondent No.4 without any authority of law initiated the disciplinary inquiry simply relying upon the report submitted by the ICC. It is also submitted that the witnesses in the report of ICC as well as in the memo of charges issued to the petitioner are the same. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the report submitted by the ICC and the said appeal is still pending, and therefore, it is not proper for the concerned respondent authority to proceed with the departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that though the aforesaid important aspect was pointed out to the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has not granted any interim relief in favour of the petitioner, and therefore the present appeal is filed. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 to 4 after taking instructions, submitted that the hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the report submitted by ICC is kept on 11.5.2023 and after considering the submission and material, the appellate authority will take appropriate decision in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the departmental proceedings are kept on 27.05.2023. It is further submitted that the departmental proceedings are kept on 27.05.2023. It is also pointed out that even if the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed by the appellate authority, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the said decision by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. It is urged that there is serious allegation levelled against the petitioner, and therefore, at this stage, departmental inquiry may not be stayed as prayed for by the petitioner and more particularly when the petition filed by the petitioner is kept on 27.06.2023 by the learned Single Judge. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that this appeal may not be entertained. 5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on the record, it emerges that the appellant petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby any interim relief has not been granted in favour of the petitioner. We have also perused the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the main petition. 6. If the decision which will taken by the appellate authority is against the petitioner, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the said decision in accordance with law before the higher forum. Sufficient time is between the hearing of the appeal as well as the departmental proceedings, and therefore, when the main petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge and learned Single Judge is yet to examine the merits of the case of the petitioner. 7. It is pertinent to note that one of the prayers made in the petition is that the respondent appellate authority be directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner during the course of hearing of this Appeal. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 has specifically stated before us that hearing of the appeal is kept on 11.05.2023 and departmental proceedings are kept on 27.05.2023. Thus, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order and more particularly, the learned Single Judge has observed in para 4 and 5 as under: “4. Reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and 4 appearing on Caveat. Thus, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order and more particularly, the learned Single Judge has observed in para 4 and 5 as under: “4. Reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and 4 appearing on Caveat. Inter alia it has been contended that the Report of ICC has held the Petitioner to be guilty of misconduct after affording him adequate opportunity of hearing. 5. It is noticed that Disciplinary action against the petitioner has been initiated pursuant to the report of Internal complaints Committee of the College, where the allegation made against the petitioner are held to be true, and compensation has been awarded to the complainant. In my opinion therefore this is not a case where proceedings have been initiated without any material. Moreover, before the inquiry officer the petitioner will have opportunity to raise his defense. Therefore, I deem it appropriate not to grant interim relief at this stage.” 8. The appellant has prayed for the following interim relief in the petition: (L) Pending hearing & final Disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (i) Direct respondent no.2 & 5 to produce the whole record of inquiry conducted by ICC against the petitioner, on the record of this petition. (ii) Direct respondent no.2 to give copies of documents sought by the petitioner vide para-12 of letter dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-L). (iii) Direct respondents to disclose under which rules the departmental inquiry is contemplated against the petitioner for which chargesheet dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure-K Colly.) is issued. (iv) Direct the respondents no.1 university to disclosed that under what provision of university Act, statutes & or orinance, theLd. Vice Chancellor of the university has appointed respondent no.6 on three persons inquiry committee to conduct inquiry against the petitioners. (v) Direct the respondent no.1 university to give copy of the documents sought by the petitioner vide applications dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure-U Colly. & Annexure-V Colly.) (M) Pending hearing & final hearing of this petition, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to: (i) Stay operation, implementation & execution of report & order dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-F) submitted & passed by ICC against the petitioner in the inquiry conducted by it. & Annexure-V Colly.) (M) Pending hearing & final hearing of this petition, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to: (i) Stay operation, implementation & execution of report & order dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-F) submitted & passed by ICC against the petitioner in the inquiry conducted by it. (ii) Stay appointment of respondent no.6 & respondent no.7 on so called three persons departmental inquiry committee & further be pleased to restrain respondent no.6 & 7 to proceed with an inquiry against the petitioner, scheduled on 01.04.2023, Saturday at 4:00 p.m. college & thereafter. 9. So far as the relief prayed in prayer clause 12 (L)(i) is concerned, it is fairly submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that all the documents have been produced or given after filing of the petition. 10. So far as the relief prayed in prayer clause 12(L)(ii) is concerned, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted that all the documents, as sought for by the petitioner, are already provided. However, if the petitioner wants some further documents, the same would be provided to the petitioner. Therefore, the said prayer does not survive. 11. So far as the reliefs prayed in prayer clauses 12 (L)(iii) and 12 (L)(iv) are concerned, it is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge has observed that the original respondent No.1-University shall file reply before the next date of hearing. Thus, the respondent No.1 will disclose in the said reply that under which provision the respondent No.6 and three other persons are appointed to conduct the inquiry and under which provision charge-sheet has been issued. Thus by way of interim relief such direction as prayed for in the said prayer clause cannot be granted. 12. So far as the relief in prayer clause 12 (L)(v) is concerned, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the petitioner has already written a letter dated 09.03.2023, a copy of which is produced at page 165A of the compilation. A Similar letter was also addressed by the petitioner, a copy of which is placed on page 166 of the compilation. It is also submitted that the said documents are still not supplied by the University. A Similar letter was also addressed by the petitioner, a copy of which is placed on page 166 of the compilation. It is also submitted that the said documents are still not supplied by the University. It is pertinent to note that in main prayer clause No.12(D), the petitioner has prayed that the respondent No.1 be directed to supply information & copy of documents sought by the petitioner vide his applications at Annexure-U collectively and Annexure-V collectively. Thus, if the interim relief is prayed for in clause 12 (L)(v) is granted at this stage it amounts to grant of main relief prayed for in clause 12(D), and therefore, such prayer cannot be granted at this stage. 13. So far as the relief prayed in Prayer 12 (M)(i) is concerned, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has prayed for stay, operation, execution of the order dated 16.02.2022 submitted by the ICC against the petitioner in the inquiry conducted by it. We are of the view that said relief cannot be granted as the petitioner has already challenged the inquiry report submitted by the ICC before the appellate forum and as submitted by the learned advocates for the respondent No.2 to 4, the appeal filed by the petitioner is fixed for hearing on 11.05.2023, and therefore, when the appeal is pending before the appellate authority, the interim prayer made in relief prayed for in prayer clause M(i) is misconceived. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that in main prayer clause 12(E) and 12(F), the petitioner has prayed that respondent No.2-Mandal be directed to decide the appeal dated 27.01.2023 filed by the petitioner whereas in prayer clause 12(F) is concerned, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the inquiry conducted by ICC and report submitted by the said Committee. Thus, as observed hereinabove when the appeal filed by the appellant is pending before the appellate authority, such interim relief cannot be granted to the appellant. 14. So far as the relief prayed in prayer 12(M)(ii) is concerned, it is stated by the learned advocates for respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the concerned respondent authority has already changed respondent No.7 i.e. Mr.Prakash Narshibhai Shankhavala. Copy of the letter dated 02.05.2023 is placed on record. 15. 14. So far as the relief prayed in prayer 12(M)(ii) is concerned, it is stated by the learned advocates for respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the concerned respondent authority has already changed respondent No.7 i.e. Mr.Prakash Narshibhai Shankhavala. Copy of the letter dated 02.05.2023 is placed on record. 15. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that interim reliefs as prayed for by the appellant in the present appeal cannot be granted to him, and therefore also, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 16. In view of the dismissal of appeal, Civil Application would not survive and the same is disposed of.