S. P. Srivastava and M. P. Singh, JJ. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who have put in appearance at this stage, have also been heard.
(2.) This special appeal is directed against an interlocutory order passed by a learned single Judge.
(3.) The principal submission in support of this appeal, urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that taking into consideration the nature of the writ petition, it was clearly a public interest litigation and consequently, the writ petition was not cognizable by a learned single Judge.;