ORDER

THE HIGH COURT BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAD MERELY RELIED UPON THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE COURT IN UNION OF INDIA V. JAGDISH NARAYANRAO KHISTIL. BY AN ORDER DATED 18-3-2005 WE HAD ASKED THE PETITIONER TO PLACE ON RECORD THE DECISION IN THE SAID CASE ON THE RECORD. BY A SECOND ORDER DATED 13-7-2005 WE HAD ASKED THE PETITIONERS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE UNION OFINDIA AGAINST THAT ORDER. THE MATTER IS NOW APPEARING IN THE LIST AFTER SEVERAL WEEKS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS IS NOT IN A POSITION TO TELL THIS COURT WHETHER THE DECISION IN JAGDISH NARAYANRAO KHISTIL HAS BEEN IMPUGNED BEFORE THIS COURT. ONE WEEKS TIME IS GRANTED AS A LAST OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONERS WITHIN WHICH TIME THE PETITIONERS WILL FILE THE PARTICULARS OF THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION, IF ANY, AND THE OUTCOME, IF ANY, BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT. IN DEFAULT, THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WILL STAND DISMISSED.

COURT MASTERS