ORDER : N. Santosh Hegde, J. - The only question that arises for our consideration in these appeals, which are against an interim order made by the TADA Court, is whether the required approval under Section 20A(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 can be oral or should it be in writing only. The learned counsel for the appellant at the time of preliminary hearing had relied upon the observations made in a case reported in Mohd. Yunus v. State of Gujarat ( 1997 (8) SCC 459 ) to support his contention that such an approval should only be in writing. Now in a recent Judgment of this Court in the case of State of A.P. v. A. Sathyanarayana and others ( 2001 (10) SCC 597 ) a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that such an approval under Section 20A(1) of TADA need not be in writing only and even an oral approval is sufficient. In view of this Judgment these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 2. Accordingly these appeals fail and the same are dismissed.