This batch of writ petitions throws into open the question of res judicata, a constructive one though. To put the issue--yet to be discussed--in perspective, I may succinctly state the contours of the case to be those regarding the reagitation of the issue of the draft Master Plan, more precisely its revival in course of time, in the face of legislative changes. The other issue is whether a saving clause can enlarge the scope of a statutory provision more than what it could have been if the act had not been repealed.

2. Since the issue is substantially the same in all the writ petitions, raised by the parties similarly situated again the self-same respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose

of all the writ petitions through a common judgment. For ease of reference and convenience, I take the facts pleaded in W.P.(C)No.33699/2014 as the basis for discussing the issues.

Facts:

W.P.(C)No.33697/2014:

3. The petitioners, nine in all, are the owners in possession of certain extents of lands within the territorial limits of Pala Municipality, the first respondent. The second and third respondents are the Secretary and the Engineer of the first respondent Municipality. Petitioners 1 to 3, having their land in Puliyanoor Village, Meenachil Taluk, submitted an application on 08.10.2013 to the first respondent for a building permit for constructing a commercial building, in terms of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 ('the K.M.B. Rules', for brevity).

4. The fourth petitioner is the owner of certain extent of land in Lalam Vilage, Meenachil Taluk; the fifth petitioner, his wife, too has certain other extent of land in the same village, both extents being contiguous. They both submitted their application, dated 03.10.2012, to the first respondent for constructing a single storied building.

5. The sixth petitioner, another owner in Lalam Kara and Village, through application, dated 19.11.2013, sought a building permit from the first respondent for setting up a service station. The first respondent, in turn, forwarded it to the Chief Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram. The seventh petitioner, concerning his property in Meenachil Village, through application dated 11.03.2014, sought a building permit. The eighth petitioner, another owner of certain property in Puliyannor Village, through an application dated 04.03.2014, sought a building permit for constructing a commercial building. Finally, referring to the ninth petitioner, it can be seen that he is the owner of an immovable property situated in Lalam Village. He too on 02.07.2013 applied to the first respondent for a building permit to construct a commercial building.

6. In course of time, the second respondent informed the petitioners 1 to 3 through Exhibit P1 that their application for building permit has been referred to the District Town Planner for clarification in respect of the proposed development of the Poonjar Ettumanoor Highway pursuant to the draft Master Plan for the respondent Municipality. Petitioners 1 to 3 have, however, impugned Exhibit P1 before this Honourable Court in W.P.(C)No. 2170/2014, contending that they could not be denied the building permit based on a 'Draft' Master Plan.

7. To petitioners 4 and 5, in respect of their building permit, the second respondent through Exhibit P2 dated 19.06.2013, communicated that their application for building permit was placed before the third respondent for his clarification. Aggrieved by Exhibit P2, petitioners 4 and 5 moved this Court through W.P.(C)No.16042/2013, which resulted in Exhibit P3 judgment, favourable to petitioners 4 and 5.

8. It can further be seen that, pursuant to the directions in Exhibit P3 judgment, the second respondent issued Exhibit P4 building permit to petitioners 4 and 5. Things have not rested there. Petitioners 4 and 5, later, on 26.03.2014 submitted a revised plan before the second respondent. However, on 26.04.2014 the second respondent through Exhibit P5 rejected the revised b