ORDER 1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. WE DO NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY FOR US TO GRANT LEAVE IN THESE PETITIONS. 3. THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED AGAINST AN INTERIM ORDER MADE BY THE HIGH COURT DATED 20-9-2004 WHEREBY THE APPELLATE BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT WITHOUT FIRST CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR ADMISSION RELEASED THE APPEAL FROM PART-HEARD AND DIRECTED THE PLACEMENT OF THE SAID APPEAL BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE ROSTER BENCH FOR FINAL DISPOSAL. 4. THE PETITIONER HEREIN CONTENDS THAT THE APPEAL IN QUESTION IS NOT YET ADMITTED AND LIMITED NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE APPEAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT A SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND AFTER SUCH SETTLEMENT FAILED THE COURT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL TO FIND OUT WHETHER IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ADMISSION OR NOT MORE SO IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE THE APPELLATE BENCH WAS A CONSENT ORDER. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT THE APPELLATE BENCH WAS JUSTIFIED IN ENTERTAINING THE APPEAL SINCE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND REQUIRED INTERFERENCE BY THE APPELLATE BENCH, THEREFORE, THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO FORMAL ORDER OF ADMISSION WOULD NOT MAKE THE APPEAL ANY LESS MERITORIOUS AND IT IS ONLY A D TECHNICAL PLEA. 6. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE THINK IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THESE ARGUMENTS BECAUSE NOW THAT THE MATTER IS LISTED BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE BENCH, THE SAID BENCH CAN CONSIDER AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE WHETHER THE APPEAL IN QUESTION DESERVES ADMISSION FOR FINAL HEARING OR NOT. IN THE SAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE APPELLATE BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT WHICH IS NOW SEIZED OF THE MATTER TO FIRST DECIDE WHETHER THE APPEAL BEFORE IT DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED FOR FINAL HEARING OR NOT. IN THAT PROCESS IT WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN THAT THE APPEAL IS AGAINST A CONSENT ORDER, HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE US ALSO CONTENDED THAT HE IS AN INTERESTED PARTY, THEREFORE, HE SHOULD ALSO BE HEARD BY THE APPELLATE BENCH BEFORE ORDERS ARE PASSED IN THE SAID APPEAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE US ALSO CONTENDED THAT HE IS AN INTERESTED PARTY, THEREFORE, HE SHOULD ALSO BE HEARD BY THE APPELLATE BENCH BEFORE ORDERS ARE PASSED IN THE SAID APPEAL. WE HAVE NO DOUBT, IF NEED BE, THE HIGH COURT WILL CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT HEREIN. 7. SHRI SATISH AGGARWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL WHO APPEARS FOR THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT THOUGH NOT A PARTY TO THESE PROCEEDINGS HAS ADDRESSED ARGUMENT CONTENDING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CUSTOMS DUES FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT WHICH HAVE TO BE SETTLED BEFORE THE INTER SE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 3 BEFORE US ARE DECIDED, HENCE, HE SEEKS LIBERTY TO INTERVENE IN THESE MATTERS. WE DO NOT PERMIT HIM TO DO SO BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPLICATION FILED BEFORE US FOR IMPLEADMENT AND WE CANNOT ENTERTAIN AN ORAL APPLICATION AT THIS STAGE OF HEARING. 8. FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE, THESE PETITIONS ARE DISPOSED OF WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE DIVISION BENCH WHICH IS NOW HEARING THE APPEAL OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO FIRST CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE SAID RESPONDENT MERITS ADMISSION OR NOT AND THEN PROCEED TO DECIDE REST OF THE ISSUES, IF NEED BE. 9. SINCE THERE IS SOME URGENCY IN THESE MATTERS, WE REQUEST THE HIGH COURT TO DISPOSE OF THESE MATTERS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE PREFERABLY WITHIN A WEEK FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. 10. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THESE PETITIONS STAND DISPOSED OF. COURT MASTERS