1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3038 OF 2006 PETITION NO.3038 OF 2006 PETITION NO.3038 OF 2006 Suhas S. Pethe ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtara & Ors..Respondents Mr. Deepak Chitnis i/b. Deepak Chitnis, Chiparikar & Co., for the Petitioner Mr. K.R. Belosey, Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and4. Mrs. A.K. Savla, for respodnent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: DATE: DATE: 15TH DECEMBER, 2006 15TH DECEMBER, 2006 15TH DECEMBER, 2006 P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 28th August, 2006 rejecting the proposal for development and D.C. Regulation 33(7) on the ground it cannot be considered till the matter pending before the Supreme Court is decided. 2. The Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of D.C. Regulation 37 and S.L.P. which is pending before it had remitted the matter to this Court to record a finding as to the validity of D.C. Regulation 33(7). The respondents in that case have approached the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court which had constituted Committees. That direction was stayed and the order was passed 2 remitting the matter for recording a finding. The learned Bench of this Court has on hearing the matter upheld the validity of D.C. Regulation 33(7). 3. Considering the above, in our opinion,the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the stay order granted by the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as expeditiously as possible. . With the above direction Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. (F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) (ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA J). V. MOHTA J). V. MOHTA J).