JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the first respondent appellate authority had passed final orders, on 15.11.2006, on the appeal filed by the petitioner, on 12.01.2006. Therefore, the present Writ Petition has become infructuous. However, he had submitted that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the order, passed by the first respondent, on 15.11.2006, if so advised, in the manner known to law. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the first respondent, on 15.11.2006, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, on 12.01.2006, if so advised, in the manner known to law.