JUDGMENT 1. Issue notice on all the Interlocutory applications. 2. The following advocates accept notice on behalf of the respondents: Mr. A.K. Srivastava on behalf of Union of India, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Mr. R.K. Maheshwari on behalf of the M.C.D. Mr. K.C. Dua on behalf of respondent No.8 Vidya Rattan Soni. Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain (Intervenor) on behalf of Society for Scientific and Ethical Living. Mr. VB Saharya on behalf of intervenor (D.D.A.) Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand on behalf of Enen Edible Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Manoj Swarup on behalf of U.P.S.I.D.C. Mrs. Seema Midha on behalf of Maneka Gandhi. 3. It appears, prima facie, that there is a conflict between the order dated 19.2.96 passed by this bench in these appeals and the orders dated 8.7.96, 6.8.96, 16.9.96 and 30.11.96 (read together) passed by a bench of two other learned judges in WP No. 4677/87, IA. No. 2 in C.A. No. 3769/96 and IA. No. 3 in CA. No. 3774/96. Which order should prevail or what other order should be passed should, appropriately, be decided by a bench of three learned judges. 4. The facts and circumstances suggest that this question should be resolved expeditiously. 5. The papers in these I.As. shall, therefore, be placed before the learned Chief Justice for requisite orders.