KURIAKOSE Vs. KODENCHERRY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 27413 of 2013 is an employee working in the first respondent Bank in the cadre of Secretary, whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 27310 of 2014 is the Board of Directors of the first respondent Bank in the other Writ Petition. The former was filed in 2013, and the latter in 2014. Today at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions sought the leave of the Court to have the Writ Petitions dismissed as withdrawn, for they have initially filed these Writ Petitions by inadvertence overlooking the alternative remedy available to them to impugn Ext. P9. Innocuous I felt the request was. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for additional respondents 6 and 7 and also the learned counsel for the additional respondent 8 in W.P.(C) No. 27143 of 2013 have raised serious objections. They questioned what is said to be the petitioners' ploy to withdraw the Writ Petitions after about two years, when faced with difficulty, having illegally obtained the stay in the beginning.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader has also expressed reservations about the method adopted by the petitioners.

(3.) As both the Writ Petitions raise the same issue, involving the same parties, this Court has proposed to dispose of the Writ Petitions through a common judgment. For discussion, I take the facts pleaded and the documents filed in W.P.(C) No. 27143 of 2013 as the basis.