pvr １ wp10820-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10820 OF 2011 1.M/s.Mak Pan Associates & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Korde, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mr.Madhusudan G.Gawde, for Petitioners. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondents 1 to 5. Mr.V.P.Patil, for Respondent no.6. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 20th December,2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard. Admittedly, the petitioners had filed petition earlier under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the same notification. That petition was withdrawn without reserving any liberty. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case pvr ２ wp10820-11 Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1987)1 Supreme Court Cases 5 , as the petitioner has abandoned this remedy for challenging the notification in the present petition, the present petition cannot be entertained. The learned Counsel submitted that after he withdrew the petition, the owner of the adjoining land who has also covered by the same notification filed petition challenging that notification and this Court entertained that petition, and therefore, according to him, the present petition can be entertained. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they have abandoned the remedy of filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification which is challenged in this petition, by withdrawing his earlier petition. The learned Counsel submitted that the notification is ab initio void. In our opinion, even assuming that to be so, as the petitioners pvr ３ wp10820-11 have abandoned their remedy, they cannot challenge the notification in a petition under Article 226 even if it is ab-initio void. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)