The counsel for the petitioners had mentioned the matter at the time of pronouncement of the judgment on 8^th July, 2016 (7^th July, 2016 having been declared a holiday) for continuation of the interim order for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioners to avail of their remedy thereagainst.

However, in the absence of the counsel for the respondents on that date, the said request was not considered and the counsel for the petitioners was given liberty to mention the matter after intimating to the counsel for the respondents.

The counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent Airport Authority of India (AAI) appear.

W.P.(C) 8183/2015

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

The counsel for the respondent AAI states that though the Eviction Officer had issued notices to the petitioners but because of the pending proceedings and interim orders therein, the petitioners have not filed any reply even till date. It is further stated that the Eviction Officer will be issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner to file its replies within a period of at least three weeks from the date of service of the notice and thus no precipitative action is likely to take place within the said period of two weeks sought by the counsel for the petitioners.

Recording the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the respondent AAI and in view whereof the request of the counsel for the petitioners inter alia stands granted, there is no need to issue any order.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶18

JULY 11, 2016 Bs..

Page 2 of 2

¶20

W.P.(C) 8183/2015

Aero Club of India & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief