Order : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment as he could not contact the petitioner and therefore, could not file reply to the application filed by the respondents under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India . He submits that as reply to the application has not been filed, he is not in the position to argue the case on the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India . 2. Learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently objects and submits that the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India was filed way back on 07.12.2023 and since then, it is pending adjudication. He further submits that till date, the petitioner has not filed reply to the said application and has also been granted two last opportunities to file reply to the same. Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, urges that in such circumstances, this Court may vacate the interim order. 3. It is seen that this Court, on 12.02.2025, had granted the petitioner one last opportunity to file reply to the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India . Further, on 24.02.2025, the matter was adjourned as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue the case and it was also observed that interim order would be vacated if nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner on the next date. The interim order was not extended on 24.02.2025 as nobody appeared for the petitioner. However till date, reply to the application has not been filed and further adjournment is sought by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Since the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India is pending adjudication since 07.12.2023 and taking into consideration the provision enshrined under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India wherein the application for vacation of the interim order is required to be disposed of within a period of two weeks, the same, in the present case, is pending adjudication from 466 days. The said provision is reproduced hereunder:- “…..(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-- (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.” 5. Accordingly, the application filed by the learned counsel for the respondents under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India , is allowed. The interim order dated 11.07.2018, stands vacated.Stay application stands rejected.