IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 74 OF 2008 MR. NAZARETH LOPES, TISWADI-GOA. ... Petitioner Versus THE TOWN PLANNER AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Rivonkar, Govt Advcoate for the respondent Nos.1 & 3. Coram:- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 12th February, 2008 P.C. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions states that in terms of the letter dated 4th October, 2007, the petitioner would submit a fresh application to the Panchayat, the respondent No.2 and on that application being processed to the respondent No.1, the learned Govt Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 states that the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 will take appropriate decision within one week from the date of the receipt of application. On such statement being made, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, craves leave to withdraw the petition with a request that the Court should clarify about the status of the licence which was already granted by the Panchayat. Needless to say that in view of the enquiry being concluded by the respondent No.1 and having found that the signature of the Town Planner was forged, the licence which was already granted by the Panchayat to the petitioner is bad in law ab initio and, therefore, automatically stands nullified and unenforceable. While accepting statement made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 3 in order to enable the petitioner to move a fresh application, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of accordingly. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. SMA