JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. The petitioner filed a form -5 application before the authorised officer for deleting his two items of property from the data bank. Originally, that application was dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court. By a detailed judgment, this Court set aside those orders as evident by Ext.P8 produced in these writ petitions. Now, as per Ext.P9 produced in these writ petitions, the form-5 application is again rejected. Aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions are filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P9 order produced in these writ petitions and also Exts.P8 judgment in these cases. I am forced to say that the impugned order passed by the authorised officer is nothing, but flouting the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P8 judgment produced in WP (C) No.25426/2025, which is the judgment dated 07.03.2025 in WP(C) No. 28066/2024:

5. “First of all, it is to be noted that, as rightly pointed