IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2008 DR. SHRI. PRAMOD DUCLO ... Petitioner Versus NORTH GOA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the respondent no.4 and 5. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the respondent no.3. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. Date:- 9th February, 2009 P.C. Heard counsel on behalf of the parties. Shri Nadkarni, Senior Advocate for the North Goa Planning and Development Authority states that the development permission has been revoked and the parties concerned have been directed to demolish the offending structure. Learned counsel for the Municipality states that the Municipality has also suspended the licence. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be heard in further proceedings before the Municipal Corporation for which the learned counsel on behalf of the Municipal Corporation has no objection. In case there is a fresh application made by the respondent no.3, the petitioner be heard by the respondent no.1. In the light of the action taken by the authorities, nothing survives in the petition at present. Therefore, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh petition, if need arises. We accept the statement made by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner and allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh petition in case need arises. All the points raised are kept open. N. A. BRITTO, J. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.