This has been done in view of the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic situation.

 

The court passed this order on Monday when it was apprised that the situation has still not improved and the district courts, tribunals as well as the High Court are working in virtual mode with limited capacity.

 

Hearing a PIL, a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Prakash Padia directed the registry of the court to give wide publicity to this order "so that the litigants may know about the order and do not rush to court for different relief covered by these directions".

 

On April 24, the court had extended all its interim orders till May 31.

 

On Monday, before the expiry of the previous order, the court directed that the earlier detailed order passed on April 24 will continue till August 2.

 

Thereafter, the court directed to list this case on August 2 for the next hearing.

 

Elaborating the interim orders, the court directed that the criminal courts in the state of Uttar Pradesh, which granted bail orders or anticipatory bail for a limited period, which are likely to expire on or before May 31, shall stand extended till August 2.

 

Besides, any orders of eviction, dispossession or demolition, already passed by the high court, district court or civil court, if not executed till the date of passing of this order, shall remain in abeyance till August 2.

 

In addition, the state government, municipal authorities, other local bodies and agencies and instrumentalities of the state government shall be slow in taking action of demolition and eviction of persons till August 2.

 

The court further directed that any bank or financial institution shall not take any action for auction in respect of any property or an institute or person or party or anybody corporate till August 2.

 

The court, however, made it clear that in case of extension of interim orders as per the present order, if any undue hardship and prejudice of any extreme nature is caused to any of the party to such proceedings, the said party/parties would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief by moving appropriate application before the competent court, and the general direction issued by this order shall not be an embargo in considering such application and deciding the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties to said case.

 

Similarly, the state and its functionaries will also be at liberty to file appropriate applications in respect of particular cases for necessary directions, the court added.