ORDER 1. Heard on I.A.No. 3130/09. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that order Annexure P/10 is virtually a final order and not a show-cause notice while on 22.1.2009, this Court passed an order treating it as a show-cause notice. By order Annexure P/10, petitioner was punished for two years and was not permitted to transport the material for the period. It is submitted that the order dated 22.1.2009 be modified and petitioner be permitted to transport the material as per agreement. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that on 22.1.2009 it was stated before this Court that the impugned order was a show-cause notice and the respondents were intending to stop the supply to the petitioner. This fact was specifically mentioned in the order and considering the aforesaid position, this Court directed that if the petitioner is getting supply from the respondents "as on today", the supply of petitioner shall continue. As stated today by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the supply of petitioner was already stopped vide order dated Annexure P/10 and on 22.1.2009, petitioner was not getting supply since 6.11.2008, so by way of ad interim writ, petitioner cannot be granted a relief which can be granted only after the decision of the writ petition. From the perusal of the order Annexure P/10, it appears that caption of the letter is a show-cause notice and contention of the petitioner was that the order annexure P/10 was a show cause notice, order dated 22.1.2009 was passed. In the opinion of this Court at this juncture, petitioner is not entitled for ad interim writ for the supply of the material and if such an order is passed, virtually it will be allowing the petition at the stage of admission. In view of aforesaid, no case is made out for modification of the order dated 22.1.2009 as it is found that the petitioner is not entitled for ad interim writ at the stage of admission. Accordingly I.A.No.3130/09 for modification of the order dated 22.1.2009 and also prayer for ad interim order are rejected. 4. At this stage, Shri Dhande, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that inspite of the lapse of period of 6 months, respondents have not filed reply and the petitioner is being deprived with the benefit of the contract. Accordingly I.A.No.3130/09 for modification of the order dated 22.1.2009 and also prayer for ad interim order are rejected. 4. At this stage, Shri Dhande, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that inspite of the lapse of period of 6 months, respondents have not filed reply and the petitioner is being deprived with the benefit of the contract. To this, Shri Nair, learned counsel for respondent submitted that within a period of 2 weeks from today, reply shall be filed. In view of the aforesaid, hearing of this case is adjourned for 3 weeks. In the meantime, respondents No.1 and 2 shall file reply. 5. Respondent No.3 is not served. Office to furnish service report in respect of respondent No.3. The petitioner shall also enquire in the office whether respondent No.3 is served or not and in case respondent No.3 is not served, petitioner to take steps for service on respondent No.3 Hamdast, so that matter may be heard as directed hereinabove. Be listed for hearing immediately after 3 weeks.