1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.919 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.919 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.919 OF 2003 UTI Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ----- Ms. Rahashri Patil Advocate i/b. Mr. M.K. Ambalal & Co. for Petitioner Mr.G.M. Mattos, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 Mr. J.B. Chinai Advocate with Mr. D.H. Mehta Advocate i/b. P.M.C. Mithi for Respondent No.2 CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P. KUKDAY, JJ. S.P. KUKDAY, JJ. S.P. KUKDAY, JJ. DATE: 16TH MARCH, 2005. DATE: 16TH MARCH, 2005. DATE: 16TH MARCH, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The period of impugned Notification expired on 11th March, 2004 in other words the reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted. . Learned Counsel states that they have taken out Chamber Summons seeking to amend the Petition and to challenge the fresh Notification which has been issued on 12th May, 2004. That Notification would be coming to an end on 11st May, 2005. It is an independent Notification unconnected with the earlier Notification. A fresh Notification which is now sought to be made will be based on the material with the Government has with them. Considering that, the cause of action being distinct, the Petition as filed even though Chamber Summons is allowed the relief as original prayed cannot be 2 granted. It will be always open to the Petitioner if they are so advised to independently challenge the fresh notification as and when issued. . With the above observations Petition stand disposed of. (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (S.P. KUKDAY,J.) (S.P. KUKDAY,J.) (S.P. KUKDAY,J.)