ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 1596/MC, Ranchi dated 22.08.2024 [Annexure-10] passed in Revision Case No. 13/2024 by Respondent No. 2, wherein Petitioner has been directed to deposit 50% of the alleged demand as determined by Respondent No. 4 issued vide Demand Order bearing Memo No. 671/M dated 19.04.2022 [Annexure-4] which is deemed to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 2118 of 2022; (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 218/M dated 10.02.2024 [Annexure-9] passed by Respondent No. 4, wherein without supplying the copy of alleged inspection report, it has been held that Petitioner has carried out illegal mining for which action in accordance with law is contemplated against the Petitioner. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, is required to be enumerated which reads as under: (i) M/s. Noor Stone Works through its Proprietor namely, Pintu Sheikh was granted a Mining Lease in the year 2001 by the State of Jharkhand in respect of Stone Boulders which is situated at Mouza Sundar Pahari, Plot Nos. 314, 318, 319, 320, 333, 336 to 338, 339 to 340, 356 to 357 having an area of 4.60 Acres in the District of Pakur and the said Mining Lease was valid for ten years having its validity up to 08.07.2011. (ii) Subsequently, on 27.01.2010, the aforesaid Mining Lease was transferred in favour of present Petitioner with effect from 27.01.2010 to 08.07.2011. Thus, during the validity of mining lease up to 08.07.2011, majority of mining activities was carried out by M/s. Noor Stone Works and Petitioner undertook the mining activity for a period of one and half year only. (iii) However, prior to expiry of the said mining lease, petitioner applied for its extension or renewal pursuant to which the mining lease was renewed in favour of present petitioner vide Mining Lease dated 09.11.2025 by the State of Jharkhand for a period of further 10 years with effect from 09.07.2011 to 08.07.2021. (iii) However, prior to expiry of the said mining lease, petitioner applied for its extension or renewal pursuant to which the mining lease was renewed in favour of present petitioner vide Mining Lease dated 09.11.2025 by the State of Jharkhand for a period of further 10 years with effect from 09.07.2011 to 08.07.2021. Subsequently, after the expiry of the aforesaid mining lease the same was extended till 31.03.2022 vide supplementary lease deed of indenture dated 24.07.2021. (iv) Thereafter, on the expiry of mining lease on 31.03.2022,the petitioner handed over the possession of the said mining area to the State Government and a letter dated 01.04.2022 has been submitted in this regard to the Respondent No. 2 which was duly received and acknowledged by the office of the said Respondent(s). (v) It is stated that adjacent to the aforementioned mining site of the Petitioner, several lessees namely, Kedar Nath Bhagat, Ashok Kumar Mandal, Akbar Stone Works & others were conducting mining operations much prior to the execution of the lease deed in favour of Petitioner. (vi) One lessee namely, M/s. New Muskan Works carried out mining activities beyond its leasehold area and, accordingly, First Information Report being Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 190 of 2021 was lodged against the said lessee upon the written report of District Mining Officer, Pakur. (vii) Petitioner strictly adhered to all the mining compliance during subsistence of mining lease till 31.03.2022. (viii) After the expiry of the mining lease of the petitioner, a demand notice contained in Memo No. 671/M dated 19.04.2022, raising a demand of Rs. 4,17,17,673/- to be paid within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the demand dated 19.04.2022 was issued by District Mining Officer, Pakur on the alleged ground of carrying out the mining operation outside the leased area by the Petitioner in contravention of Rule 4 and 54 of the JMMC Rules, 2004. (ix) Prior to the alleged Enquiry/Measurement Report dated 16.04.2022 of the Circle Officer, Pakur, the Petitioner had already handed over the possession of the lease area to the Government of Jharkhand and thereafter, the Petitioner had no concern from the said mining area. (ix) Prior to the alleged Enquiry/Measurement Report dated 16.04.2022 of the Circle Officer, Pakur, the Petitioner had already handed over the possession of the lease area to the Government of Jharkhand and thereafter, the Petitioner had no concern from the said mining area. (x) The Petitioner filed its protest to the said alleged demand and categorically stated that Petitioner had already surrendered mining lease area prior to alleged enquiry/measurement undertaken by Circle Officer and, thus, the Petitioner had not undertaken any illegal mining activities. (xi) Thereafter, the Petitioner has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2118 of 2022 against the alleged demand order before this Hon'ble High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 20.04.2023 by directing the Petitioner to file a detailed show cause reply within a period of 21 days and District Mining Officer, Pakur was also directed to pass an order afresh with the assistance of Circle Officer, Pakur within 30 days after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. (xii) Thereafter, in compliance with the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, the Petitioner filed its detailed show-cause reply dated 17.05.2023 before the District Mining Officer, Pakur. (xiii) Thereafter, District Mining Officer, Pakur was pleased to fix the matter on 13.06.2023 and, on the said date, the Petitioner could not appear and, took adjournment in the matter. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for 04.07.2023, and, on the said date, the Petitioner duly advanced his arguments, however, Circle Officer, Pakur did not attend the proceedings on the said date and accordingly, the matter was posted for hearing on 14.07.2023 pursuant to which the Petitioner filed additional reply dated 14.07.2023 before the District Mining Officer, Pakur. However, the Circle Officer, Pakur did not attend the proceedings on the said date also. Since, the Circle Officer, Pakur did not attend the proceedings even on a single date, therefore, Petitioner was under bona fide impression that the adjudication of the matter was still pending before the District Mining Officer, Pakur. (xiv) During the course of hearing, the Petitioner specifically demanded the copy of inspection report of the Circle Officer, Pakur, but, the same was not supplied to Petitioner. (xiv) During the course of hearing, the Petitioner specifically demanded the copy of inspection report of the Circle Officer, Pakur, but, the same was not supplied to Petitioner. However, District Mining Officer, Pakur proceeded to pass order bearing Memo No. 218 dated 10.02.2024 against the Petitioner, wherein it was held that the Petitioner has been engaged in illegal mining for which action in accordance with law is contemplated against this Petitioner. (xv) Being aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No. 218/M dated 10.02.2024 passed by District Mining Officer, Pakur, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition being Revision Case No. 13/2024 under Rule 62 of the JMMC Rules, 2004 before the Mines Commissioner. (xvi) Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Revision Petition under Rule 62 of the JMMC Rules, 2004 which does not prescribe for any pre-deposit condition to be paid by an aggrieved person including the Petitioner, despite thereof without appreciating the aforesaid facts of case, by solely relying upon Rule 65(3) of the JMMC Rules, 2004, as order contained in Memo No. 1596/MC, Ranchi dated 22.08.2024 has imposed a pre-deposit condition to Petitioner by directing him to make payment of 50% of the alleged demand as determined by Respondent No. 4 which stood non-existence after passing of order dated 20.04.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 2118 of 2022. (xvii) It is stated that order contained in Memo No. 1596/MC, Ranchi dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Mines Commissioner directing the Petitioner for pre-deposit of 50% of the alleged amount is against the statutory provisions of the JMMC Rules, 2004. (xviii) Accordingly, the Petitioner has not filed Appeal under Rule 65 of the JMMC Rules, 2004, rather, has taken recourse of Rule 62 of the JMMC Rules, 2004 by filing Revision Petition before the Mines Commissioner. 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he became the party to the lease-deed for carrying out the mining operation. 4. The District Mining Officer, Pakur based upon the inspection, has come out with the finding of carrying out excess mining beyond the territory of the lease-hold areas. 5. The District Mining Officer, Pakur has passed an order on 19.04.2022 raising the demand of Rs. 4,17,17,673.00 with a direction to pay the same within the period of 15 days. 4. The District Mining Officer, Pakur based upon the inspection, has come out with the finding of carrying out excess mining beyond the territory of the lease-hold areas. 5. The District Mining Officer, Pakur has passed an order on 19.04.2022 raising the demand of Rs. 4,17,17,673.00 with a direction to pay the same within the period of 15 days. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, on count of non- observance of the principle of natural justice has come to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2118 of 2022. The said writ petition was disposed of by quashing the order dated 19.04.2022 with a direction upon the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and pass order afresh. 6. It is stated that the District Mining Officer, Pakur, in terms of the said order, has passed order afresh. The said order has been carried to the revisional authority. The revisional authority vide order dated 22.08.2024 has disposed of the revision being, Revision Case No.13 of 2024 by directing the writ petitioner to deposit 50% amount for the purpose of hearing of the appeal on merit.The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 7. It is further stated that after the order of remand by this Court to the District Mining Officer has not come out with the specific demand and, as such, the direction passed by the revisional authority of deposit of 50% of the amount is erroneous. 8. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order contained in Memo No.1596/MC, Ranchi dated 22.08.2024 passed in Revision Case No.13 of 2024 by Respondent No.2 i.e. the Mines Commissioner and the order contained in Memo No. 218/M dated 10.02.2024 passed by the District Mining Officer, Pakur. Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the ground that the order so passed by the revisional authority suffers from an error, since, in absence of any demand having been assessed and determined by the appellate authority, being the original authority, the 50% of what to be deposited, it is not available. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the ground that the order so passed by the revisional authority suffers from an error, since, in absence of any demand having been assessed and determined by the appellate authority, being the original authority, the 50% of what to be deposited, it is not available. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted by placing reliance upon the order passed by this Court dated 26.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No.1011 of 2025, wherein issue of jurisdiction has been taken into consideration. Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State 11. Per contra, Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted by taking aid of the stand inter alia taken in the counter affidavit. 12. It has been submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the revisional authority and what is being argued that 50% of what is not fit to be argued, reason being that, the revisional authority has already assessed the demand by reiterating the demand which was found to be there in the original order. 13. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the writ petitioner purposely has not approached the appellate authority, rather he has directly approached to the revisional authority, which is not available for the writ petitioner in view of the availability of the remedy of appeal, as provided under Rule 62 of the JMMC Rule, 2004. 14. Learned State counsel has further submitted that since the revisional authority has re-assessed the amount based upon the materials available on record of carrying out the mining operation beyond the periphery area of the lease-hold land, hence, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, has submitted that the specific case is of jurisdiction when the order was passed by the District Mining Officer, Pakur afresh on the direction passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2118 of 2022 dated 20.04.2023. 16. It has submitted that issue of jurisdiction since goes to the root, hence, even though the same has not been pleaded, then also, the same is to be taken into consideration. Analysis: 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the argument advanced on their behalf. 18. 16. It has submitted that issue of jurisdiction since goes to the root, hence, even though the same has not been pleaded, then also, the same is to be taken into consideration. Analysis: 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the argument advanced on their behalf. 18. The factual aspect, which is not in dispute in the case, is that the writ petitioner has been alleged to commit irregularity by carrying out the mining operation within the territory of the lease-hold area and in consequence thereof, the District Mining Officer had come out with a demand of Rs. 4,17,17,673.00 directing the writ petitioner to pay the same within the period of 15 days in terms of the order dated 19.04.2022. 19. The said order was challenged on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.2118 of 2022has found the substance in the said ground and, as such, quashed the order dated 19.04.2022 by remitting the matter before the District Mining Officer, Pakur to pass order afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 20. The District Mining Officer, Pakur has passed the order on 10.02.2024 after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, but has come to the conclusive finding that the mining operation has been carried out beyond the periphery area of the lease-hold. 21. However, no penalty has been inflicted, however, the views has been expressed that the action, in accordance with law, is anticipated. The said order was challenged before the revisional authority. The revisional authority, has accepted the finding recorded in the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 and has found the assessment which has been assessed by the District Mining Officer in the order dated 19.04.2022 to be correct and cast liability upon the writ petitioner of Rs. 4,17,17,673.00. 22. The revisional authority has directed the writ petitioner to make payment of 50% amount for the purpose of hearing the issue on merit. The said order is subject matter of the present writ petition. 23. The issue of jurisdiction has been raised although not pleaded in the writ petition, rather the pleading is there on the ground of the wrong assessment of travelling beyond the lease-hold area so far as the mining operation is concerned. 24. The said order is subject matter of the present writ petition. 23. The issue of jurisdiction has been raised although not pleaded in the writ petition, rather the pleading is there on the ground of the wrong assessment of travelling beyond the lease-hold area so far as the mining operation is concerned. 24. The further ground has been taken that the power to direct to deposit 50% amount is not available to the revisional authority, rather it is at the stage of preferring an appeal. 25. Further the question which has been raised regarding the power of revisional authority to direct the writ petitioner to deposit 50% amount subsequently being left out by the writ petitioner, since it has been submitted at Bar that he is not raising the said issue, rather he is insisting upon the issue of jurisdiction. 26. So far the objection raised that the jurisdictional issue, it is settled position of law that jurisdiction since goes to the root and being the legal issue can be raised at any stage of proceeding, reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balvant N. Viswamitra& Ors Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs [(2007) 8 SCC 706], in particular paragraph-9, which reads as under: “9. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the decree passed by the trial court can be said to be “null” and “void”. In our opinion, the law on the point is well settled. The distinction between a decree which is void and a decree which is wrong, incorrect, irregular or not in accordance with law cannot be overlooked or ignored. Where a court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such court would be without jurisdiction, non est and void ab initio. A defect of jurisdiction of the court goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority of the court to pass a decree or make an order. Such defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and a decree or order passed by a court or an authority having no jurisdiction is a nullity. Validity of such decree or order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or collateral proceedings.” 27. Such defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and a decree or order passed by a court or an authority having no jurisdiction is a nullity. Validity of such decree or order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or collateral proceedings.” 27. It is further settled position of law that even right decision by a wrong forum is no decision as has been held by Hon’ble in Pandurang & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (1986)4 SCC 436 ]. For ready reference, relevant paragraph-4 thereof is quoted as under: “4. When a matter required to be decided by a Division Bench of the High Court is decided by a learned Single Judge, the judgment would be a nullity, the matter having been heard by a court which had no competence to hear the matter, it being a matter of total lack of jurisdiction. The accused was entitled to be heard by at least two learned Judges constituting a Division Bench and had a right to claim a verdict as regards his guilt or innocence at the hands of the two learned Judges. This right cannot be taken away except by amending the rules. So long as the rules are in operation it would be arbitrary and discriminatory to deny him this right regardless of whether it is done by reason of negligence or otherwise. Deliberately, it cannot be done. Negligence can neither be invoked as an alibi, nor can cure the infirmity or illegality, so as to rob the accused of his right under the rules. What can be done only by at least two learned Judges cannot be done by one learned Judge. Even if the decision is right on merits, it is by a forum which is lacking in competence with regard to the subject matter. Even a “right” decision by a “wrong” forum is no decision. It is non-existent in the eye of law. And hence a nullity. The judgment under appeal is therefore no judgment in the eye of law. This Court in State of M.P. v. Dewadas [ (1982) 1 SCC 552 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 275 : AIR 1982 SC 800 : (1982) 3 SCR 81 ] has taken a view which reinforces our view. And hence a nullity. The judgment under appeal is therefore no judgment in the eye of law. This Court in State of M.P. v. Dewadas [ (1982) 1 SCC 552 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 275 : AIR 1982 SC 800 : (1982) 3 SCR 81 ] has taken a view which reinforces our view. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, and send the matter back to the High Court for being placed before a Division Bench of the High Court, which will afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides and dispose it of in accordance with law, expeditiously. We wish to add that the Registry of the High Court was expected to have realized the true position and ought not to have created a situation which resulted in waste of court time, once for hearing the appeal, and next time, to consider the effect of the rules. No court can afford this luxury with the mountain of arrears which every court is carrying these days.” 28. Herein, when this Court has entered the question of jurisdiction, then the learned State counsel is fair enough to concede that this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1011 of 2025 by taking reference of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2859 of 2022 wherein upon the submission of the learned Advocate General that the Government has come out with notification being Notification No. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 issued under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) of the Act 1957 thereof by conferring power upon the authorities i.e., the Director (Mines) for entire State of Jharkhand;, Additional Director, Mines, Ranchi for entire State of Jharkhand; Deputy Director, Mines within its territorial jurisdiction and District/Assistant Mining Officer within its territorial jurisdiction, has passed the order and accordingly, the matter was remitted back for the fresh consideration. 29. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the date will be relevant to come to the conclusion that on the day when the order was passed by the District Mining Officer, Pakur i.e. on 10.02.2024, whether the District Mining Officer was conferred with the power to assess the amount of penalty said to be assessed in view of the provision of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. 30. 30. Since the notification dated 06th May, 2025 has been issued by the State,which itself suggest that before the 06th May, 2025 power to the officer concerned has not been conferred by the state.For ready reference the relevant paragraphs where the conferment of the power has been dealt with in the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1011 of 2025 are referred hereunder: 22. So far, the issue no.(i) is concerned, it requires to refer herein that this Court has already adjudicated the said issue in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022 vide which was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2025 wherein it has been categorically held that by virtue of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax owned for the unauthorized occupation of the land. It has further been observed that if the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors [ (2017) 9 SCC 499 ] will be taken into consideration along with the provision of Rule 54(6) as also the purport of Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957, it is evident that the power has been conferred to the State Government to recover the amount. Since the provision has been stipulated for recovery of the amount by the State Government which itself suggest that the authority,if conferred with the power, is having jurisdiction to raise the demand in exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule 2004, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “81. It also requires to refer herein that by virtue of Section21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax owned for the unauthorized occupation of the land. Herein, the State Government means the functionaries of the State, i.e., the executive authority. Herein, the State Government means the functionaries of the State, i.e., the executive authority. Accordingly, power has been conferred upon the DMO by virtue of the notification dated 6th May, 2025, although there was no notification prior to the issuance of notification dated 6th May, 2025 that is the reason notification has been issued conferring power upon there presentative(s) of the State Government and therefore, the State Government i.e., representative(s) of the State Government has power to raise demand under Section 54(6) of the Rules, 2004. 82. So far as the power which has been exercised by the District Mining Officer under the provision of Rule 54(8) now it is 54(6) is concerned wherein the ground has been taken that under Rule 54(6) the District Mining Officer has no jurisdiction,but if the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (Supra) will be taken into consideration along with the provision of Rule 54(6) as also the purport of Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957, it is evident that the power has been conferred to the State Government to recover the amount. Since the provision has been stipulated for recovery of the amount by the State Government which itself suggest that the authority, if conferred with the power, is having jurisdiction to raise the demand in exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule 2004.” 23. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that this Court has held that by virtue of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax. It has further been observed by this Court that power has been conferred upon the District Mining Officer by virtue of the notification dated 6th May, 2025, although there was no notification prior to the issuance of notification dated 6th May, 2025 and that is the reason notification has been issued conferring power upon the representative(s) of the State Government and, therefore, the State Government, i.e., representative(s) of the State Government has power to raise demand under Section 54(6) of the Rules, 2004. 24. 24. Accordingly, in the light of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition of which the relevant paragraphs are being quoted hereinabove, it is evident that District Mining Officer of the concerned district has power/jurisdiction to impose the penalty under rule 54(6) of the Rule 2004 as amended time to time. 31. It needs to refer herein that this Court has already held in the W.P.(C) 2859 of 2022 that “if the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (Supra) will be taken into consideration along with the provision of Rule 54(6) as also the purport of Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957, it is evident that the power has been conferred to the State Government to recover the amount. Since the provision has been stipulated for recovery of the amount by the State Government which itself suggest that the authority, if conferred with the power, is having jurisdiction to raise the demand in exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule 2004”. 32. Herein, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that in the changed circumstances of conferment of power vide notification no. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 he has agreed to the same the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration to be done by the competent authority in view of conferment of power to the authorities concerned. 33. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that since the jurisdiction has been conferred by the State to the officer concerned i.e. District Mining Officer by virtue of notification dated 06th May, 2025, therefore, it will be subservient to the end of justice to remit the matter back to the authority concerned for its fresh consideration. 34. Accordingly, order dated 10.02.2024 passed by the District Mining Officer, Pakur is hereby quashed and set aside. 35. In consequence thereof, the order passed by the revisional authority dated 22.08.2024 passed in Revision Case No.13 of 2024 is also quashed and set aside. 36. The matter is remitted before the District Mining Officer, Pakur to pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. 37. The writ petitioner has undertaken before this Court to appear before the District Mining Officer, Pakur on 06th November, 2025. 38. 36. The matter is remitted before the District Mining Officer, Pakur to pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. 37. The writ petitioner has undertaken before this Court to appear before the District Mining Officer, Pakur on 06th November, 2025. 38. The District Mining Officer, Pakur is directed to pass the final order by 18th November, 2025. 39. The demand, if any, will depend upon the final decision to be taken by the authority i.e. District Mining Officer. 40. The District Mining Officer, Pakur will take decision strictly on the merit based upon the materials available on record without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court. 41. The instant writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of. 42. In view of the above, the interim order dated 11th November, 2024 stands vacated.