WP(C) 3301/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petition er. By judgment and order dated 6.11.2009 passed in WP(C) No.3054 of 2009 and other connected cases this Court had held that candidates who had appeared in the Comb ined Competitive Examination, 2006 conducted by the Assam Public Service Commiss ion for appointment in the Assam Civil Service and allied cadres are entitled, u nder the Right to Information Act, to receive copies of their answer scripts upo n applications being made. Aggrieved, the Assam Public Service Commission has filed a Special Leave Petitio n before the Apex Court against the aforesaid order. By order dated 12.3.2010, w hich has been brought on record by the writ petitioner by means of additional af fidavit dated 12th August, 2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed interim stay of the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court and passed the following further order : The petitioner’s counsel is permitted to inspect the answering scripts brought to court by the petitioner (without prejudice to the respective contentions). The petitioner Diganta Barooah was the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.3382 of 2009 which was also disposed of by this Court by its judgment and order dated 6.11.20 09. It has been stated in the writ petition and also submitted by the learned counse l for the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Apex Court answer scripts of the petitioner were perused by his counsel which indicated that a total of 53 marks in different papers as awarded by the e xaminer had been deleted. It is stated that thereafter, an interim application w as filed on behalf of the respondents in the Special Leave Petition on 30.3.2010 seeking directions for restoration of the deleted marks of the candidates inclu ding the present writ petitioner and for preparation of a fresh select list on t hat basis. It has been further stated that on the said interim application order s have been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitting the applicants in the Interim Application to move the High Court. Accordingly, this writ petition has been filed. On earlier occasions by orders dated 11.6.2010 and 25.6.2010 the Court directed that the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be placed before it. Pu rsuant to the said orders the additional affidavit dated 12th August 2010 has be en filed enclosing a copy of the order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Sup reme Court, details of which have already been noted. The said order dated 12.3. 2010 does not record what has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner i.e. th at the Hon’ble Apex Court had passed orders permitting the petitioner to move th e High Court seeking the same relief(s) as made in the Interim Application filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In fact, at one stage, the learned counsel fo r the petitioner had submitted that the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ref erred to above, were verbal orders . The absence of any order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the interim application permitting the petitioner to move the High Court, in our considered view, can b e understood to meant that either the relief(s) sought in the Interim Applicatio n has been refused by the Hon’ble Apex Court or that the Interim Application fil ed is still pending. The aforesaid conclusion is inevitable in the absence of an y positive order on record despite the assertions made on behalf of the petition er. In the absence of any such order and the pendency of the Special Leave Petit ion it will be highly inappropriate for us to entertain this writ petition on th e materials furnished. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition any further. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the above.