ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. HEARD PARTIES. 3. THIS IS A VERY PECULIAR CASE. THE RESPONDENTS CLAIMED THAT BIFR HAD PASSED AN ORDER. THEY FILED A WRIT PETITION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT ORDER. HOWEVER, TILL DATE THE ORDER OR A COPY THEREOF HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED EVEN BEFORE "THIS COURT. WE FIND THAT ALL THAT IS AVAILABLE WITH THE RESPONDENT IS A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-11-2003 WRITTEN BY THE SECRETARY, BIPR THAT SUCH AN ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED. 4. THE APPELLANT HAD GONE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE PURPORTED ORDER. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DIRECTED PRODUCTION OF SUCH AN ORDER. THE APPELLANTS HAD APPLIED FOR THE COPY OF THE ORDER BUT AGAIN THE APPELLANTS WERE SUPPLIED ONLY WITH THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY STATING THAT SUCH AN ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED. 5. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD FILED THE WRIT PETITION SEEKING ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER WHICH WAS NEVER PRODUCED. THE HIGH COURT WITHOUT INSISTING ON PRODUCTION OF THE ORDER OR, A COPY THEREOF DIRECTED IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT ORDER. THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT WITH LIBERTY TO THE RESPONDENTS TO SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER, IF AND WHEN SUCH AN ORDER IS PRODUCED. 6. THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO B COSTS.