JUDGMENT : Syam Kumar V.M., J. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the interim order dated 31.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.41978 of 2024. Appellants were the petitioners in the W.P.(C) and respondents 1 and 2 were the respondents therein. 2. The W.P.(C) was preferred by the appellants/petitioners inter alia seeking to declare that the respondents have no right, authority or jurisdiction to issue any prohibitory orders preventing the appellants/petitioners and other medical shop owners from selling the drugs/medicines/medical preparations below the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) or offering the same for sale at such price below the Maximum Retail Price. An ancillary prayer to quash Ext.P8 proforma affidavit and Ext.P19 circular issued by the 1 st respondent to ensure compliance of the above prohibition was also sought in the W.P.(C). It is submitted that an interim order staying Ext.P8 and Ext.P19 as sought for had been initially granted which however was modified later subsequent to the impleadment of additional respondents 3 to 7 in the party array. The grievance of the appellants is confined to the single sentence of the impugned interim order which clarified the earlier interim order, directing that the appellants/petitioners shall not advertise regarding the sale of drugs and pharmaceuticals below the retail price in front of their shop rooms. The appellants thus seek to set aside the interim order of clarification in the W.P.(C) which is presently pending consideration before the learned Single Judge. 3. Heard Sri.Babu Karukapadath, Advocate for the appellants/petitioners, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2/respondents and Smt.P.Ushakumari, Advocate for additional respondents 3 to 7. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the direction modifying the earlier interim order was rendered without hearing the appellants on the merits of the matter and in the total absence of an I.A. or prayer by the respondents seeking to vacate or modify the former interim order. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the said clarification has had the effect of nullifying the earlier interim order and even of negating the prayers in the W.P.(C) even before hearing it on merits. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the said clarification has had the effect of nullifying the earlier interim order and even of negating the prayers in the W.P.(C) even before hearing it on merits. It is contended that over and above the fact that such a direction is not sustainable on the merits, the manner of rendering the same without affording the appellants even an effective opportunity to refute or challenge the said purported clarification/direction is illegal and unsustainable. Hence the learned counsel seeks the said interim order to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader as well as the counsel appearing for the additional respondents submitted that the clarificatory interim order impugned is valid and sustainable. The same had been rendered by the learned Single Judge after being convinced of the mischief behind the purported offer displayed on the boards of the medial shops offering to sell the drugs/medicines/medical preparations below the Maximum Retail Price. 6. It is noted that the contentions put forth by both sides touching upon the merits and substantive contentions in the W.P.(C), which is presently pending consideration before the learned Single Judge. Taking note of the fact that it is beyond the scope of this appeal to entertain such substantive contentions on merit, it is deemed fit and proper to dispose of this appeal leaving it open to the parties to raise all their respective contentions before the learned Single Judge. Though the learned counsel for the appellants fervently appealed that till such disposal of the W.P.(C), the impugned order restricting the appellants from displaying the relevant boards offering sale below the Maximum Retail Price may be kept in abeyance, in the nature of the order passed and taking note of the contentions put forth by the learned Government Pleader we refrain from passing any such orders. 7. This Writ Appeal is disposed of relegating the parties to raise their respective contentions in the pending W.P.(C) with a request to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the same at the earliest convenience. It is clarified that no observations have been made herein regarding the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are left open. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.