where the bureaucracy abdicated its duty and failed to objectively assist the Decision-Making Authority, in arriving at a just and fair conclusion in conformity with larger public interest. Had the senior officers flagged all the relevant issues on file, we have no reason to doubt that the Competent Authority would have never approved the proposal to release the subject land. 29D.4 Doctrine of merger 47. We must also note that the previous Civil Appeals preferred by the State Government, challenging the same impugned order were dismissed on account of non-prosecution. Hence, there arises an important question with regard to the maintainability of the present appeals. This issue may be conclusively determined by examining the applicability of the doctrine of merger to the peculiar set of circumstances of the instant case. 48. In this respect, in the landmark case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala12, it was held that: “44. To sum up, our conclusions are: (i) Where an appeal or revision