Interim stay protection continued where a strong prima facie case was shown and vacation of stay was refused.

The challenge concerned an impugned circular and the alleged lack of authority to delegate power to issue summons. The Court noted that the petitioner had established a strong prima facie case and held that the interim protection already granted should not be disturbed at this stage. On that basis, the applications seeking vacation of the stay were rejected, the stay order was continued, and the petition was listed for final hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim stay granted in favour of the petitioner should be vacated in view of the challenge to the impugned circular and the alleged want of authority to delegate the power of issuance of summons.

Analysis: The order records that the petitioner had made out a strong prima facie case and that the interim protection earlier granted ought not to be disturbed. The applications sought vacation of the stay, but the Court found no reason to withdraw the protection at this stage.

Outcome: The applications for vacation of stay were rejected and the stay order was continued. The petition was directed to be listed for final hearing.

---