Facts:

Since, the petitioners in both the writ petitions are similarly placed, having a common grievance against the same respondent, the Grama Panchayat, this Court has proposed to dispose of both the writ petitions through a common judgment. However, the facts in W.P.(C)No. 12349/2013 are taken up for narrative purpose and also ease of reference.

2. The petitioners, sixteen in number, in both the writ petitions are the tenants of the fifth respondent Grama Panchayat, running their businesses for decades in the shops taken on lease. In course of time, the fifth respondent issued notices, one of them being Exhibit P8, to all the tenants of 31 tenements, including the petitioners, asking them to vacate the shop rooms, since the Grama Panchayat has already decided to demolish the existing shopping complex, so that it could build a new one under a central scheme called "Pura Rural Hub" in collaboration with INKEL.

3. Having submitted their Exhibit P9 reply notice, the petitioners filed W.P.(C)No.9199/2012, which this Court disposed of directing the petitioners to file an appeal before the statutory Tribunal. Apart from submitting Exhibit P12 petition under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the petitioners also filed Exhibit P15 appeal before the second respondent, the District Collector.

4. It seems that the petitioners have also filed Appeal No.402/2012 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which dismissed the appeal, despite its finding that the quit notice issued by the fifth respondent is not in strict compliance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Kerala Public Building (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1968 ('the Act' for brevity). Aggrieved, the petitioners filed W.P. (C)No.23948/2012, pending which the fifth respondent passed Exhibit P18 order. The petitioners, in turn, filed appeals before the District Collector, one of them being Exhibit P19. Eventually, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No. 23948/2012 through Exhibit P20 judgment directing the second respondent to dispose of the statutory appeals. Through Exhibit P21, the second respondent dismissed all the statutory appeals.

5. Ventilating their grievance that the fifth respondent has selectively decided to evict the petitioners, while letting some other tenants to continue, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition, inter alia, laying challenge against Exhibit P21 judgment of the second respondent.

Submissions:

Petitioners':

6. In the above factual backdrop, Smt. P. Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners had initially invested huge amounts and sustained losses in the business; only recently, when they started making profits, the respondent Grama Panchayat issued eviction notices without any basis. According to her, the petitioners have already paid the annual rent for the year 2012-13. She has also submitted that the petitioners have been subjected to eviction with a mala fide intention, since some of the employees and Board members of the Grama Panchayat have had personal rivalries with the petitioners.

7. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the present building need not be dismantled, as it is not suitable for 'Pura' project. According to her, the very scheme has lapsed and no funds have been made available by the Government. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel that there have been many procedural violations in the process adopted by the respondent Grama Panchayat for evicting the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel has also ventilated the grievance of the petitioners that their Exhibit P9 notice under Section 249 of the Act has not been responded to by the officials.

8. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that when the petitioners and others filed fifteen appeals, Exhibit P19 being one of them, before the second respondent, the said appellate authority dismissed all the appeals through Exhibit P21. According