- (1.) THESE two mandamus-appeals were taken up together as a common order passed by the learned Single Judge, disposing of two writ-applications, has been challenged by preferring these two mandamus-appeals.
(2.) INITIALLY, M. A. T. No. 1678 of 2004 was filed by the appellant by impleading both the writ-petitioners as respondents along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. A Division Bench of this Court condoned such delay. Subsequently, objections having been raised by the respondents/writ-petitioners as regards the maintainability of one appeal against a common order disposing of two writ-applications, the other appeal being M. A. T. No. 2057 of 2007 was filed along with an application for condonation of delay.
(3.) AFTER taking into consideration the fact that M. A. T. No. 1678 of 2004 had already been filed by making both the writ-petitioners as parties, we have decided to condone the delay in filing the latter one as by filing the said appeal, the technical objection raised by the respondents before us has been obviated and at the same time, the State has not been deprived of its just revenue.;