ORDER : Jayant Patel, J. 1. The present appeals are directed against the order dated 21.9.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions whereby the rule nisi was issued and the interim order is granted. 2. The learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has brought to our notice that similar matter had come up before this Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.A. No. 3462 of 2015, dated 16-8-2016 in those appeals for the reasons recorded therein has not interfered with the order passed by the learned Single Judge leaving the parties to agitate the question before the learned Single Judge at the time of final hearing of the matter. He further submits that similar issues are involved in the present appeals. 3. We may record that this Court in the above referred W.A. No. 3462 of 2015 and allied matters vide order dated 16-8-2016 had observed thus: "As all these appeals arise from similar orders passed by the learned Single Judge, they are being considered simultaneously. 2. All the appeals are directed against similar orders passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby rule nisi has been issued in writ petitions and interim orders have been passed. 3. We have heard Mr. Harish Kumar M.S, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in all the matters, Mr. M.E. Nagesha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in Writ Appeal Nos. 3462 and 4659 to 4672 of 2015 and Mr. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 4. When we have taken up the matter for consideration, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in all the appeals as well as Mr. M.E. Nagesha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in Writ Appeal Nos. 3462/2015 and 4659-4672 of 2015 states that all the appeals arise from interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the main writ petitions are already heard by the learned Single Judge and the judgment is awaited. 5. M.E. Nagesha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in Writ Appeal Nos. 3462/2015 and 4659-4672 of 2015 states that all the appeals arise from interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the main writ petitions are already heard by the learned Single Judge and the judgment is awaited. 5. In the above fact situation, we find that when the main writ petitions are heard by the learned Single Judge and the judgment is being awaited, it would not be a fit case to interfere at this stage, that too, when interim orders were in operation throughout and the main matter is heard by the learned Single Judge and judgment is being awaited. Further, as the present appeals are not entertained, at this stage, it is observed that the rights and contentions of both the parties in the main writ petitions at the time of final hearing would remain open to be considered by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 6. In view of disposal of these appeals, I. A. No. I/2015 for stay in W.A. Nos. 3462 and 4659 to 4672 of 2015 does not survive for consideration and the same shall stand disposed of." 4. As the fact situations are the same, we find that the similar view deserves to be taken. 5. Under the circumstances, when the main writ petitions are heard by the learned Single Judge and the judgment is being awaited, it would not be a fit case to interfere at this stage that too when interim orders were in operation throughout and the main matter is heard by the learned Single Judge and the judgment is being awaited. Further, as the present appeals are not entertained at this stage, it is observed that the rights and contentions of both the sides in the main writ petitions at the time of final hearing would remain open to be considered by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law. All appeals are disposed of accordingly. 6. I.A. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2015 would not survive for consideration. Hence I shall stand disposed of accordingly.