Barin Ghosh, J.

Since the facts of these cases and the law applicable thereto are same or similar, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.

2. In all these appeals writ petitions filed by the respondent-writ petitioners succeeded wherein validity of section 400(8) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 had been challenged.

3. Before these writ petitions were decided, another writ petition was considered by an Hon'ble single Judge of this Court. In that writ petition also validity of the said section of the said Act was challenged. The Hon'ble Judge by the judgment and order dated 9th December, 1987 dismiss the said writ petition on the principal ground that the writ petition was filed on mere apprehension that an order has been passed under the provision of the said section but from the records as produced, it did not appear that any such order has in fact been passed. The Hon'ble Judge held that the writ petition as framed is not maintainable as the same is merely speculative. The Hon'ble Judge, however, on being pressed by the petitioner went in to the validity of the said section and held as follows:

"I could not discover any infirmity in that provis