Ia disposed without hearing.. what to do

Without knowing the the disposal details or the reasons for filing the said IAs or the background of the case, no opinion can be rendred, however since the matter is posted for final hearing, you may take up your grievance in this regard during the final hearing of the main petition. 

Thankyou for reply. 

You should first check the actual order sheets for each IA rather than relying only on the portal status. “Disposed” on the portal does not necessarily tell you whether each IA was decided on merits or closed along with the main proceedings.

Since you are appearing in person, I would also consider getting a certified copy of the relevant order and checking exactly what the court recorded regarding the hearing of each IA. If an IA was decided without an opportunity to address the court, the order itself will be important before deciding what remedy to seek. An experienced High Court practitioner should be able to advise you on whether a recall, review, or another application is appropriate in your particular case.

What is the opinion and advise  of the lawyer engaged by you who is well aware about facts and circumstances of the case, besides the fact that s/he is an able, competent, intelligent enough and duty bound to satisfy your question(s) ?

There is only one order sheet that mentions only one IA number. Two other IAs were disposed without any separate ordersheet. 
Details can be accessed at MPHC.gov.in (Case No WA 1596/2025). Just briefly, the IA disposed was about our IA for nonmaintainability on two grounds, one that CPIO/FAA dont have right to appeal as per provision of RTI act, and second that the litigation cost that was imposed specifically on CPIO and FAA with adverse remarks against CIC/FAA/CPIO, it is a personal cost and not a cost on government/institute, and hence CPIO/FAA can not use government machinery to litigate personal cost as per government OM (legal assistance to government officers) as well as judicial predents. Also, even if the litigation cost is assumed to be the cost on institute/government, only authorized person who is the chairman-BOG can institute the case. 

This is a matter of blatant corruption where ineligibility in the particular recruitment cycle has already been admitted as well as established in court. There are very likely otherr ineligibile candidates. Ideally the institute should have checked internally to ensure all other candidate in the tainted recruitment cycle are eligibile. However, the institute is now protecting to ensure no more illegality is uncovered. Surprisingly, judiciary has not shown any sign of objection to institute's efforts to refuse information of eligibility, and insted asksing the litigant questions like now when you have got promotion, why dont you sit silent and so on which is nothing but bullying. 

Also, in this matter, as highlighted earlier, ex-parte stay wass granted despite the fact that there wass no urgency. Should not court have provided opportunity to defendant to argue within 30 days. Instead of doing that, it disposes IA for vacating stay without hearing.

And then it passes remarks that litigant does not have legal bckground. Should not the court that is expected to know the law act ass per the law?

Any suggestion/guidance? Our judiciary is supposed to act in a manner to instill faith in common man. Instead, it appears to act in the interest of corrupts.  

Admittedly, the Writ Petition had been filed by the Respondent. If so, how could the petitioner agitate on the issue of non-maintainability of the WA?

It is seen from the Case Status that the matter is being promptly heard, the Ia has also been disposed of through speaking order.

It is the best interest of the Respondent that to pursue the case diligently and promptly during the Final Hearing.

Disposal of all pending IAs without separate oral arguments is not necessarily illegal, particularly where the Division Bench decides to take the main appeal itself for final hearing. Some interlocutory applications may become unnecessary or may effectively merge into issues to be considered at final disposal. However, an application raising maintainability/jurisdiction ordinarily deserves consideration, although the court need not permit lengthy oral submissions.

An ex parte interim stay may initially be granted without hearing the opposite party where urgency is shown. After appearance, you are entitled to seek vacation/modification of that stay, but this does not guarantee a separate hearing on every IA.

First obtain the signed judicial order, rather than relying solely on the case-status portal. Check whether the order actually disposes of every IA and records reasons or preserves your objections for final hearing.

As petitioner-in-person, prepare a short written synopsis specifically raising maintainability, vacation of interim protection, alleged false statements, and RTI merits, and request that these objections be considered at final hearing.

Thanks everyone for your kind and thoughtful suggestions. 

You are welcome for your appreciations.

You may follow up the final hearing diligently and without any lapse from your side to get a favorable decision.