ORDER 1. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri K.G. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents as regards the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Krishna Swami v. Union of India I, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India2, Union of India v. Darshna Devi3, Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India4 and P. Ashokan v. Union of India5 2. Shri Shanti Bhushan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has, however, submitted that these decisions have no application in view of the law laid down by this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak6, inasmuch as the impugned judgment of this Court is a judgment passed without jurisdiction and in this context the learned counsel has invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., U.P and Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India8 and has urged that in granting relief under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court has exceeded the jurisdiction which could be exercised by this Court under Article 142. 3. The question relating to scope of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution is under consideration before the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India9 in which the arguments have been concluded and judgment is reserved. Since the matter regarding the scope of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution is under consideration in the said case, it would be more appropriate that the hearing of this matter is deferred till the decision in the said matter. 4. The writ petition may be listed for hearing after the judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 200 of 1995 is pronounced.