- (1.) Both the writ petitions have been heard together. The facts and questions involved are so similar that the learned Counsel appearing in both cases have agreed that the decision is one shall govern the other. In fact similar arguments have been advanced by the petitioners in both the petitions, countered by similar arguments by and on behalf of the respondent's I accordingly propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment.
(2.) It has not been disputed that the respondents assured and agreed to provide the petitioners with central subsidy. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have acted on the basis of such assurance and argument and have altered their position. In fact, even the fact that cheques have been issued by the authorities and also received by the respondent No.1 for payment to the respective petitioners, but that the respondent No.1 has declined to handover the cheques to the petitioners, have also not been disputed.
(3.) By the interim orders passed by this Court in this two cases the respondents have been directed not to return back, but to keep the cheques validly operative until the disposal of these petitions.;