JUDGMENT :

Both these interlocutory applications have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for carrying out necessary amendment in the prayer portion as well as in relevant paragraphs of the main writ petition.

2. From the record, it appears that during pendency of the writ petition, some subsequent development took place, which needs to be challenged in the main writ petition. The proposed amendment has been made in paragraph-1 of the respective I.A. It has also been mentioned therein that if the proposed amendment is not allowed, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and by allowing the proposed amendment, the nature of the writ petition shall not be changed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to the same.

4. Let the proposed amendment in para-1 of the interlocutory applications, be taken as part of the writ petitions.

5. The aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed.

W.P.(S) No. 1276 of 2012 & W.P.(S) No. 1277 of 2012

6. Since, in both these writ petitions, same and similar impugned orders are under challenge, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing on b