Interim protection against coercive recovery granted pending challenge to Rule 96(10)(b) and related recovery action.

Interim protection against coercive recovery was warranted while the challenge to Rule 96(10)(b) remained pending, because similar petitioners had already been granted interim relief and the impugned payment demand arose during pendency of the main petition. The Court allowed the adjudication proceedings to continue, but held that coercive recovery should not proceed at this stage. On that basis, interim relief against recovery was granted in favour of the petitioner pending determination of the constitutional challenge and connected proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim protection against coercive recovery was warranted pending adjudication of the challenge to Rule 96(10)(b) and the connected proceedings.

Analysis: The petition raised a constitutional challenge to Rule 96(10)(b) and the related recovery action, and similar matters were already pending before the Court with interim protection granted to other petitioners. In that situation, and since the impugned communication requiring payment was issued during the pendency of the main petition, parity with similarly placed litigants justified interim protection. The adjudication proceedings were permitted to continue, but coercive recovery was considered unwarranted at this stage.

Conclusion: Interim relief against coercive recovery was granted in favour of the petitioner.

---