ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The first respondent wrote a book 'Bhavsagar Samundar Amar Bani Granth'. The State Government banned the said book by issuing a notification dated 27.9.2001, under Section 95(1) of Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that it defamed the Sikh religion and was likely to promote enemity between followers of different religions. The first respondent challenged the said notification by filing a writ petition which was disposed of on 11.11.2008 by quashing the notification. However, in view of the sensitivity of the issue, the High Court permitted the State to pass a fresh order recording the grounds and pending such fresh orders, allowed the ban to remain in force. The first respondent challenged the said order of the learned single Judge by filing an LPA. 3. The said ban was reiterated by a fresh notification dated 15.12.2008, issued in pursuance of the order of the learned single Judge. The first respondent challenged the second notification in an interlocutory application in the pending Letters Patent Appeal. The said application was disposed of by the impugned order dated 7.5.2010, directed the State Government to set up a Committee of five persons comprising two experts of Sikh religion, two experts of Hindu religion and one expert to be nominated by the first respondent. The State Government filed an application for modification of the order dated 7.5.2010 on the ground that Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandh Committee was not agreeable for recommending any Sikh experts for that Committee. The High Court, by order dated 20.8.2010 rejected the application filed by the State Government for modification and reiterated its direction for constitution of the Committee. The said orders are challenged by the State Government in these appeals by special leave. 4. When the matter came up today, Mr. V.C. Mahajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that these appeals may be allowed and the orders dated 7.5.2010 and 20.8.2010 passed by the High Court may be set aside without going into the merits of the matter. The effect of the said submission would be that the application filed by first respondent challenging the notification dated 15.12.2008 requires to be heard again, alongwith the appeal. 5. As the first respondent does not oppose these appeals we allow these appeals and set aside the orders dated 7.5.2010 and 20.8.2010 without examining the matter on merits. The effect of the said submission would be that the application filed by first respondent challenging the notification dated 15.12.2008 requires to be heard again, alongwith the appeal. 5. As the first respondent does not oppose these appeals we allow these appeals and set aside the orders dated 7.5.2010 and 20.8.2010 without examining the matter on merits. The High Court may now proceed to decide the LPA and the pending application on merits. Appeal allowed.