IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.53 OF 2007 First Pasta Lane Residents Association .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondent Ms. Usha Purohit for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, senior counsel with Mr. S.P. Kanuga and Ms. Geeta Shastri i/by M/s. Khilnani & Co. for the respondent No.9. Ms. A.K. Savla for the BMC. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & J.P. DEVADHAR , J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.: During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the parties including private respondents, state that this petition could be disposed of at this stage itself and need not be kept pending in this court. Agreed terms are that the period of licence granted to the petitioner under section 394 of the B.M.C. Act has already come to an end in December, 2006 and the respondent No.1 has already applied for renewal of the said licence, which application is pending before the Corporation. It is also brought to our notice that the Corporation has already issued notice to show cause why the licence granted to the petitioner be not revoked and the proceedings in furtherance to the said show-cause notice are pending, however, could not be concluded in view of the order passed by the learned City Civil Court on 4th November, 2006. 2. In view of the above, it is agreed between the parties that the competent authority of the Corporation shall hear respondent No.9 and the petitioner and pass an appropriate order expeditiously and dispose of the application for renewal of licence as well as the application for revocation. These proceedings shall continue and the order as agreed would be passed by the authorities despite the order dated 4th November, 2006 as it is specifically agreed between the parties. 3. The Corporation has stated that the property in question is reserved and the parties would be heard on the effect of such reservation by the competent authority. 4. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. The respondent No.9 or the petitioner as the case may be would be at liberty to challenge the said order in accordance with law. No order as to costs. The agreed terms and conditions are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.