M/S.Champalal Harakchand And ORS. v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

2(i)-WP.1844.2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1844 OF 2013 M/s. Champalal Harakchand } and Ors.

} Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.

} Respondents Mr. Pravin Samdani - Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Sanglikar, Mr. Suneet Tyagi, Mr. Hilaur Vaswani for the petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Shastri - Addl. Government Pleader with Mr. Amit Shastri - AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 3.

Mr. Vijay D. Patil with Mr. Nikhil Chavan for respondent no. 2.

Mr. Suresh Dubey for respondent no. 4.

Mr. Ravi Kadam - Senior Advocate with Dr. Birendra Saraf and Mr. Pratik Kothari i/b. Mr. Yogesh Adhia for respondent no.5.

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

DATED :- JUNE 8, 2016 P.C. :- The petitioner has, by this writ petition, sought a writ of certiorari calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to the impugned sanctioned plans, details of which are set out in prayer clause (a) of the writ petition and thereafter scrutinise them and quash and set aside the same.

J.V.Salunke,PA

2(i)-WP.1844.2013.doc 2) The further prayer is seeking a direction to the respondents to cancel and/or withdraw/revoke the Intimation of Approval (IOA).

3) Today, when such a petition was placed before us for admission, it is reported that during its pendency, there is a subsequent development. The subsequent development has also been placed on record by contesting respondent no. 5. The affidavit of the partner of the same is taken on record. Annexed thereto is a document styled as revised Letter of Intent (LOI), which deletes and excludes the property which is the subject matter of this writ petition and which the petitioners allege has not been acquired.

4) In our view, once the revised LOI excludes the portion or property which is subject matter of this writ petition, then, nothing survives in the writ petition. In view of this subsequent development and the affidavit placed on record, the writ petition is disposed of by clarifying that this court has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions. The pendency of this writ petition and any interim order shall not, therefore, preclude a competent court or authority from dealing with such issues as are raised in accordance with law.

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) J.V.Salunke,PA