Mid-term review and sunset review overlap led to interim restraint on acting upon final findings pending disposal.

Continuation of a mid-term review after initiation of a sunset review was treated as requiring judicial scrutiny, and the Court recorded a prima facie view that simultaneous continuation of both reviews was not permissible on the facts presented. As the authorities had sought extension belatedly, the balance of convenience was found to favour the petitioners and no prejudice was seen in keeping the impugned action in abeyance pending final disposal. Interim protection was therefore granted, and the Union of India was restrained from acting on the impugned final findings until the matter was finally decided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continuation of the mid-term review after initiation of the sunset review and expiry of the relevant time period warranted interim restraint, and whether the petitioners had made out a prima facie case for protection pending final hearing.

Analysis: The challenge concerned the authority of the designated authority to continue with the mid-term review after the sunset review had been set in motion. The order records a prima facie view that simultaneous continuation of both reviews was not permissible in the circumstances, and that the authorities had approached the Court for extension only belatedly. On that basis, the Court found that the matter required consideration, that the balance of convenience lay with the petitioners, and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the impugned action was kept in abeyance until final disposal.

Conclusion: Interim protection was granted and the Union of India was restrained from acting upon the impugned final findings, with notice issued for final disposal.

---