- (1.) The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other three connected appeals being S.A.W.No.552/2009, 637/2009 and 853/2009 because all these appeals involve same controversy.
(2.) This is a special appeal filed by State (respondent of writ petition No.2194/2008) under Rule 134 of High Court Rules against an order dated 11.5.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. So far as SAW No.637/2009 is concerned, it also arises out of same order. So far as SAW No.853/2009 is concerned, it arises out of an order passed by same learned Single Judge basing his conclusion on the order passed earlier in aforementioned two writ petitions out of which SAW No.638/2009 and SAW No.637/2009 arise. So far as SAW No.552/2009 is concerned, it arises out of a writ petition, which was decided by another Single Judge, who was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. This appeal is, therefore, filed by writ petitioner. This is how, these four appeals are filed i.e. three by respondents of writ petitions against the order allowing the writ petitions and 4 th appeal by writ petitioner against an order dismissing his writ petition.
(3.) The question therefore that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether writ petitioners have been able to make out a case and if so, on what grounds. Since in this case, out of four writ petitions, three were decided by one Single Bench and other was decided by another Single Bench, it resulted in passing of conflicting orders on one issue because as observed supra, one Single Bench allowed three writ petitions granting benefit to the respective three writ petitioners, whereas the other one, whose writ petition was decided though later in point of time as against three writ petitions the same was dismissed. In this view of the matter, the question is which order of Single Bench is correct i.e. the one which allowed the writ petition or the one which dismissed it.;