ORDER :

M.K. Sharma, Anil R. Dave, JJ.

Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Our attention has been drawn to the contents of paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment and order : 2010 (253) E.L.T. 387 (Bom.)] wherein the High Court has recorded that a consensus was there between the counsel appearing for the parties at the time of hearing that there are two contradictory orders in respect of the same Petitioner which could not be allowed to hold the field. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has stated before us that there could not and should not have been such a consensus nor was there any instruction for giving such a consent by the Petitioners to the concerned counsel.

3. We have noted the said statement. In our considered opinion, in that event, it may be a matter of review which the Petitioners should resort to in order to get proper and appropriate relief. If, in fact, no such consent was given by the counsel and if there was no such instructions by the client to the counsel, in that event, an appropriate application should be filed by the Petitioners before the High Court seeking for a review of the aforesaid contents in paragraph 5.

4. We permit the Petit