ORDER 1. THESE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 12-12-2003 PASSED IN REVIEW PETITIONS. IT MUST BE MENTIONED THAT AGAINST THE MAIN JUDGMENT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS HAD EARLIER BEEN FILED. HOWEVER, WHEN THOSE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS REACHED HEARING ON 1-9-2003, THE FOLLOWING ORDER CAME TO BE PASSED: "AFTER ARGUING FOR SOME TIME, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS SEEKS PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION. PERMISSION IS GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN." IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER THAT THE MATTER WAS ARGUED FOR SOME TIME. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT WAS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THUS, AS HAS BECOME COMMON NOWADAYS, COUNSEL APPLIED FOR WITHDRAWAL ON THE GROUND THAT A REVIEW WILL BE B APPLIED FOR. 2. THEREAFTER THE REVIEW APPLICATIONS WERE FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHICH HAVE NOW BEEN DISMISSED. BY THESE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS THE ORDER DISMISSING THE REVIEW PETITIONS HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. 3. IN THE CASE OF SHANKER MOTIRAM NALE V. SHIOLALSING GANNUSING RAJPUT1 IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT THAT AGAINST AN ORDER REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW, A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THIS AUTHORITY IS DIRECTLY ON THE POINT IN ISSUE. NOT ONLY ARE WE BOUND BY IT BUT WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH IT. FACED WITH THIS SITUATION, IT IS SOUGHT TO BE SUBMITTED THAT THIS COURT IN THE CASES OF GREEN VIEW TEA & INDUSTRIES V. COLLECTOR2 AND K. RAJAMOULI V. A.V.K.N. SWAMY3 HAS TAKEN CONTRARY VIEWS. WE FIND THAT IN THESE D TWO CASES THE QUESTION WHETHER A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST AN ORDER REJECTING A REVIEW PETITION, WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL. IN THESE CASES, THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS BARRED BY PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA. IT WAS HELD THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS NOT BARRED BY PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA. IN NEITHER OF THESE CASES HAS REFERENCE BEEN MADE TO THE ABOVEMENTIONED JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN SHANKER MOTIRAM NALE CASE1. IN BOTH THOSE CASES IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A SPECIAL LEAVE E PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF IT NOT BEING BARRED ON PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA. IN BOTH THESE CASES THE QUESTION WHETHER A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS AGAINST AN ORDER DISPOSING OF A REVIEW PETITION WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL. IN BOTH THOSE CASES IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A SPECIAL LEAVE E PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF IT NOT BEING BARRED ON PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA. IN BOTH THESE CASES THE QUESTION WHETHER A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS AGAINST AN ORDER DISPOSING OF A REVIEW PETITION WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL. THESE CASES THEREFORE HAVE NO RELEVANCE AT ALL. 4. ON THE BASIS OF THE RATIO IN SHANKER MOTIRAM NALE CASE1 WE HOLD THAT THESE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. THEY ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. COURT MASTERS