NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH GAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State Mr. Ashok Mehta and Mr. S. K. Rai for the Union of India on 21.2.1998 we had retired and dictated the order, but before it could be pronounced, Mr. V. B. Singh, learned counsel appeared and submitted that he was representing Sri Jagdambika Pal and prayed that he may be heard before the order is pronounced. Accordingly, we had allowed him to intervene and heard him at length. The main thrust by Mr. V. B. Singh was that pronouncement of the order should be postponed till 11 a.m. of 22.2.1998 in order to enable him to produce the relevant records relating to the matter and no interim order should be passed. He was asked to furnish the materials on which he wanted to oppose the order. But he always continued to submit that he should be given an opportunity. Such opportunity can be effectively availed of by him only upon receipt of the record which he will be able to produce before the Court at 11 a.m. of 22.2.1998.

(2.) IN the circumstances, each of us had agreed to adjourn the matter till 9 a.m, of 22.2.1998 with reference to the materials that might be produced by Mr. Singh. That is how the matter has been placed before us on the basis of the order that we had passed in respect of adjourning the matter till 9 a.m. of 22.2.1998.

(3.) A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. S. P. Gupta that in view of Rule 3. Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, there having been a difference of opinion between two Members of the Bench, the matter has to be referred to Full Bench even in respect of inter -locutory order and had elaborated his submissions on the said point with reference to the relevant rules.