S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. By way of these Interlocutory Applications, the applicants, (i.e. fifth and sixth Respondents, referred to hereafter as such) have sought clarification/modification of order dated 30.09.2010 (hereafter, "impugned judgment"), whereby, inter alia, entry No. 1(3) of Schedule II of the notification bearing No. GSR 991 (hereafter, the "exempting notification"), dated 13.07.1962 issued under Sub-clause (vii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (i) of Section 2 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereafter, "the Act") by the Central Government exempting the air guns, air rifles and air pistols from all the regulations and controls under the Act, was quashed.

2. The facts, in brief, which led to the filing of these applications are that the Petitioner (hereafter, "PFA") preferred a writ petition challenging the above-said notification of the Central Government on the grounds, inter alia, that although the object of the Arms Act is to preserve public security, as also maintenance of public order, the basic requirements thereof have been given a go-bye by liberalizing the policy of grant of license of arms, which resulted in unhampered distribution, sale and possession of firearms in the country. The same lead to disastrous results, in as much as by reason thereof guns were being used for killing or maiming of animals or birds. The Petitioner, however, was not against the target practice. The writ petition was allowed on 30.07.2002.

3. The applicants herein, i.e. National Rifle Association (Respondent No. 5, hereafter, "NRA") and Toy Air Gun, Air Rifle, Air Pistol & Pellets Manufacturers (W) Association (Respondent No. 6, hereafter "Manufacturers' Association"), claiming to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment filed separate applications seeking leave to file impalement application and applications under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impalement. They also filed applications under Section 151 of the Code seeking stay of the impugned judgment and separate applications seeking clarification/modification of the impugned judgment.

4. The applications for stay under Section 151 of the Code, being I.A. Nos. 11288/2002 (R5) and 11288/2002 (R6) dated 08.10.2002 and 07.10.2002, respectively were allowed by order of this Court, dated 01.11.2002. The Court also allowed the Respondents' applications for leave to file an application for impalement and impalement application and the stay of the impugned judgment was confirmed the same day, through its order dated 23.07.2003; and Rule D.B. was issued. Thereafter the hearing in the case could not commence as it was adjourned for various reasons including on the behest of applicants or sometimes that of the Petitioner. Arguments in the matter finally heard, in these circumstances.

5. This Court shall now analyze their individual applications seeking clarification/ modification of the judgment dated 03.07.2002 are IA Nos. 11290/2002 and 11286/2002, which were reserved for judgment by its last order dated 17.09.2010. The pleadings and the grounds urged in these applications are almost identical, as a matter of fact even the grammatical errors are same, therefore, the Court shall take them up simultaneously.

6. Both the Respondents submit that the Petitioner had deliberately not imp leaded the present Respondents in the original proceedings and impalement of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Director, Animal Welfare, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Animal Welfare Board of India was also not bona fide. It is alleged that the name of the Chairperson of the Petitioner, i.e. Mrs. Maneka Gandhi was deliberately not disclosed to this Court, as she was also the Minister of Social justice and Empowerment, at that relevant time. Further, in its two-page counter affidavit, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment conceded to all the averments in the petition, this it is alleged was due to the influence of the Minister, being the