JUDGMENT : 1. This special leave petition is directed against the order dated October 4 and 9, 1995 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1526/95 which is still pending before the High Court. The order is only interlocutory in nature wherein the High Court has expressed the prime facie view that the activities carried on by the petitioner respondents Nos. 13 and 14 (respondents Nos. 12 and 14) in the writ petition) would amount to practising the profession of law. It has been stated that said respondents have established liasion office in this country and they are carrying on work of drafting documents, reviewing negotiations and providing comments on documents, conducting negotiations and advising clients on international standards and customary practice relating to clients' transactions, gathering information from prospective clients in India and conducting market research to assess the feasibility of providing legal services in India. For the purpose of carrying on these activities the said respondents have obtained the permission of the Reserve Bank of India under Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 wherein certain conditions have been imposed. By the impugned order the High Court has directed respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of law into the various activities, transactions or assignments undertaken by the petitioner and respondents Nos. 13 and 14 in India and to take appropriate action if there is breach of any provision of law. 2. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the said direction may be modified to a limited extent that in case the inquiry reveals any violation of condition (vii) in the order granting permission under Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and an order is passed on that basis no action may be taken on the basis of such order during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. 3. Shri F.S. Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 herein has emphasised he need for an early decision on the important question involved in the case regarding the right of foreign law firms practising the profession of law in this country. He submits that the main matter should be transferred from the High Court to this Court so that the said question is decided finally by this Court at an early date. He submits that the main matter should be transferred from the High Court to this Court so that the said question is decided finally by this Court at an early date. The learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 herein (the petitioner in the writ petition in the High Court) as well as the learned counsel for the foreign law firms viz. the petitioner and respondents Nos. 13 and 14 herein have, however, submitted that it would be better if the matter is first considered by the High Court so that this Court has the benefit of the views of the High Court. The latter course of action (sic) acceptance. 4. Having regard to need for an early decision on the question aforementioned we consider it appropriate to request the High Court to take up the main writ petition and dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within three months. In the meanwhile it will be open to respondents Nos. 9 and 10 herein to proceed with the inquiry and pass orders as per impugned order of the High Court but the said orders would not be implemented for a period of four weeks. 5. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.