The petitioners are aggrieved with the alleged initiation of the execution proceedings when they have filed application for setting aside the ex parte Award as directed in Ext.P3. The petitioners do not specifically produce any document to show that in fact, execution has been proceeded with. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners only seek consideration of Ext.P1 applications in all the writ petitions. That has already been directed in Ext.P3. When applications to set aside the ex parte Award were not received by the authority, the petitioners were before this Court and this Court by Ext.P3 directed that the WP(C).34571/14 2 1st respondent shall receive and consider the applications in accordance with law on merits. In such circumstances, there is no purpose served in again directing the authority to consider the applications.
The writ petitions hence stand closed, since there is already a direction to the authority to consider the applications filed by the petitioners.
SD/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs