MOLI Vs. SUB COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am considering these four writ petitions and propose to dispose them of jointly in this judgment since they involve, at least substantially, similar facts and circumstances and the relief to be granted in one would be dependent and axiomatic to that to be granted in the others. However, for the sake of convenience, I treat WP(C) No. 39792 of 2016 as a lead case and all references to the documents unless otherwise specified in this judgment.

(2.) I have heard Sri. R.T. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 39792 of 2016, Sri. R. Sunilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 40031 of 2015, 12148 and 13202 of 2016, who also appears for the contesting respondents in WP(C) No. 39792 of 2016, Sri. P.K. Manojkumar, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, Smt.Thushara James as also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

(3.) I do not propose to detail the facts involved in these cases in extenso, since it would not be necessary to consider all of them, as are pleaded or alleged in this writ petition, for resolution of the disputes presented in these cases. Since the controversy is in a narrow compass, I will deal with the fats with as much brevity as it would permit.