ORDER 1. ON REQUEST MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS THESE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE TAKEN ON BOARD. 2. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL. 3. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE A FOREIGN COUPLE SEEK THE ADOPTION OF A FEMALE CHILD BY THE NAME OF HASEENA. THE HIGH COURT BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT HAS DIRECTED THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED TO FIRST SEARCH FOR AN INDIAN FAMILY WHICH IS WILLING TO ADOPT THE SAID CHILD AND IN THE EVENT OF NO SUITABLE INDIAN FAMILY COMING FORWARD TO ADOPT THE SAID CHILD, THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED MAY CONSIDER GIVING THE CHILD IN AN INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED COMPLY WITH THE SAID EXERCISE DIRECTED BY THE HIGH COURT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUITABLE INDIAN FAMILY COMING TO ADOPT THE SAID CHILD, THE PETITIONERS CAN MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR ADOPTION OF THIS CHILD. WE DO NOT THINK MERELY BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CLAIM SOME BOND OR AFFINITY WITH THE SAID CHILD THEY CAN BE GIVEN THE CHILD IN ADOPTION CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HIGH COURT. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT WOULD CAUSE DELAY AND SINCE NO OTHER INDIAN COUPLE HAS COME FORWARD, THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD BY WAY OF ADOPTION. WE DO NOT THINK SUCH A PROCEDURE IS PERMISSIBLE AND THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SUITABILITY OF THE PETITIONERS AS ADOPTIVE PARENTS OF THE CHILD CONCERNED ONLY IN THE MANNER DIRECTED BY THE HIGH COURT. 5. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED. COURT MASTERS