M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Appellant has preferred the present two Writ Appeals before this Court as against the order, dated 21.07.2010, made in W.P.Nos.32430 and 33304 of 2006 passed by the learned single Judge in allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the second Respondents.

2. The Learned single Judge, while passing the order dated 21.07.2010 in W.P.Nos.32430 and 33304 of 2006, has inter alia observed that, ".... the Petitioners have shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the first Respondent ought to have condoned the delay and allowed the parties to agitate the matter on merits" and consequently allowed the writ petitions by setting aside the order dated 21.03.2006 in TSE No. IA.17 of 2005 and TSE No. IA 18 of 2005. Further, the learned single Judge, after condoning the delay, has directed the first Respondent to number the appeals, issue notice to the second Respondent (Appellant herein) and decide the matter after hearing both the parties and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

3. Challenging the order, dated 21.07.2010, in W.P.Nos.32430 and 33304 of 2006, passed by the Learned single Judge, the Appellant/Management has focussed the instant t