ORDER

1. THESE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 12-12-2003 PASSED IN REVIEW PETITIONS. IT MUST BE MENTIONED THAT AGAINST THE MAIN JUDGMENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS HAD EARLIER BEEN FILED. HOWEVER, WHEN THOSE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS REACHED HEARING ON 1-9-2003, THE FOLLOWING ORDER CAME TO BE PASSED:

"AFTER ARGUING FOR SOME TIME, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS SEEKS PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION. PERMISSION IS GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN."

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER THAT THE MATTER WAS ARGUED FOR SOME TIME. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT WAS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THUS, AS HAS BECOME COMMON NOWADAYS, COUNSEL APPLIED FOR WITHDRAWAL ON THE GROUND THAT A REVIEW WILL BE B APPLIED FOR.

2. THEREAFTER THE REVIEW APPLICATIONS WERE FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHICH HAVE NOW BEEN DISMISSED. BY THESE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS THE ORDER DISMISSING THE REVIEW PETITIONS HAS BEEN CHALLENGED.

3. IN THE CASE OF SHANKER MOTIRAM NALE V. SHIOLALSING GANNUSING RAJPUT1 IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT THAT AGAINST AN ORDER REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW, A S