SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.S. Mohammed Quadri and Doraiawamy Raju, JJ.

SPL (C) Nos. 7320-7239/2000 and IAS 1-10(From the Judgment and Order Dated 12.10.1999 in CWJC 4016/90, 708/87, 5776/86, 4603/90, 244/90, 10129/89, 2581/91, 5273/90 and 5253/90 of the High Court of Patna). D/d. 5.1.2001.

State of Bihar and Ors. - Petitioners

Versus

Uma Talkies and Ors. - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- H.L. Aggrawal, Kumar, Rajesh Singh and B.B. Singh, Advocates.

For Respondents:- Ramesh Kr. Agrawal, Praveen Kumar, Gopal Subramanium, Anurag Dubey, R.K. Agrawala, S.N. Singh, M.K. Verma and S.R. Setia, Advocates.

Constitution of India, 1950 Article 136 Clarificatory note - Sentence - Order directing respondent to "act in accordance with the judgment" - Explained.

[Para 3]

ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Delay in filing as well as in refiling is condoned.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in these special leave petitions, except to clarify that in the impugned order the sentence, namely, "... all pending proceedings and demands are quashed and the Respondents are directed to act in future in accordance with this judgment" obviously refers to only those proceedings out of which the writ petitions had arisen. With the above clarification, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

.