IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 732 OF 2008 SHRI. ARMANDO PEREIRA ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 4. Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mr. S. S.Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. M. Salkar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondent no.3. Mr. G.R. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent no.5. Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 10th December, 2008 ORAL ORDER Heard. Taken up for final disposal by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioner and the Respondent no.5 are real brothers. There is a dispute in regard to the title, in between the Petitioner and Respondent no.5 touching the subject property. Suits are pending in Civil Court. The Petitioner is occupying a flat on second floor of the building. The Respondent no.5 had obtained a licence for construction of the premises adjoining the building. This Petition has been filed making a grievance about the inaction on the part of the Authorities in not considering the objections raised by the Petitioner to the proposed construction. 3. The learned Counsel for Respondent no.5 submits that, as of now, the said Respondent does not propose to raise more than ground plus one storeyed construction and thus the Petitioner is in no way inconvenienced. It is made clear that the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Respondent no.5, that the new construction will not be raised beyond ground plus one, is subject to the final decision in the Civil Suit which is pending between the Petitioner and the Respondent no.5 and others. He further makes a statement that the license that was obtained from the Corporation for raising the construction had expired after the construction was raised up to plinth level and hence an application for renewal of the licence had been moved prior to the expiry of the licence and it is pending consideration with the Corporation. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that they are in receipt of the application for renewal and the Corporation would be demanding an approval from NGPDA. The learned Counsel for the Corporation has submitted that they would pass appropriate Orders in accordance with law on the application moved by the Respondent no.5 for renewal. The learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 3 makes a statement that NGPDA will consider the question of grant on approval for renewal of the licence on its own merit and in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the objections. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation states that it would refer the application to Respondent no.3 within two weeks from today. The Respondent no.3 shall take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the papers from the Corporation. In this view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on instructions from his client, does not press the Petition and seeks permission to withdraw the Petition. Permission granted. The Writ Petition is disposed off as withdrawn. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. arp/*