Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—At the very out set we would like to make the picture clear with regard to connectivity and analogous hearing of the aforesaid matters in order to avoid any confusion in this regard. Initially, when aforesaid First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 2008 was filed as defective [FAFO No. (25) of 2008], a Division Bench of this Court upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties on 08th January, 2008 condoned the delay and directed the department to allot regular number of the appeal. It appears that against this order dated 08th January, 2008, M/s. Technology Park Ltd. approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)..CC No. 7154 of 2008 (M/s. Technology Park Ltd. v. Sri Ram Chaudhary and others), wherein Sri Ram Chaudhary (the appellant in FAFO No. 120 of 2008) filed Intervention Application No. 3 of 2008. Ultimately, on 30th June, 2008 the Supreme Court while dismissing the special leave petition and I.A. No. 3 of 2008, passed the following order :

“Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties in I.A. No. 3/2008, the special leave petition filed by M/s. Technology Park Ltd. is itself taken up fo