Urgent Appeal Hearing Amid Covid-19 Challenges: Stay Order Dispute Resolved with Protective Measures

The appeal was listed urgently despite scheduled office objections. Filed against the Single Judge's order, the respondent objected to granting a stay order, citing dual remedies. The Appellate Tribunal's irregular sitting due to Covid-19 was noted, with the appellant seeking interim orders. The Court disposed of the appeal, relegating the appellant to the Tribunal but allowing for protective orders. The respondent was barred from taking precipitative action. Both parties could argue all contentions before the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel was directed to address office objections despite the appeal's disposal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Urgency in listing the appeal before the Court.
2. Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.
3. Objection to granting stay order.
4. Appellate Tribunal's irregular sitting due to Covid-19 pandemic.
5. Issuance of notice during the pendency of the appeal.
6. Relegation of the appellant to the Appellate Tribunal.
7. Prohibition on precipitative action by the respondent.
8. Clarification on contentions to be raised before the Appellate Tribunal.
9. Removal of office objections.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was listed due to the urgency claimed by the appellant's counsel, despite being scheduled for the removal of office objections.
2. The appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2020, which dismissed the writ petition.
3. The caveator respondent objected to granting any stay order, arguing that pursuing dual remedies before the Appellate Tribunal and the Court was not permissible.
4. The irregular sitting of the Appellate Tribunal due to the Covid-19 pandemic was highlighted, with the next date being 11.02.2021. The appellant sought interim/protective orders in the pending appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant contended that taking precipitative action on the impugned notice issued during the appeal's pendency would defeat the purpose of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
6. The Court decided to dispose of the appeal by relegating the appellant to the Appellate Tribunal while reserving the liberty to seek interim/protective orders.
7. The respondent was prohibited from taking any precipitative action pending the appeal's disposal before the Appellate Tribunal.
8. It was clarified that all contentions raised in the writ petition and the appeal could be argued before the Appellate Tribunal by both parties.
9. Despite the disposal of the appeal, the appellant's counsel was directed to remove specific office objections, with some objections being complied with or waived.

---