1/2 wp7150-10,85-13 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7150 OF 2010 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.85 OF 2013 Shri Dhanaji K. Patil (Koli) & Ors. … Petitioners Versus The Managing Director, CIDCO & Ors. … Respondents ... Mr. Prashant P. More, Advocate for the Petitioners in both petitions. Mr. V. P. Malvankar, “A” Panel Counsel for Respondent No.2- State. Mr. G. S. Hegde i/b. M/s. G. S. Hegde & Associates for Respondent No.1. … CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH C.J.& ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : APRIL 1, 2013. ORAL ORDER :- (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.) This matter is listed today for clarification of the order dated 29 November, 2011. 2 While disposing of the Writ Petition No.7150 of 2010, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : D. K. Deshmukh & Anoop V. Mohta, JJ.) passed the following order : 2/2 wp7150-10,85-13 “P.C. On the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner Writ Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty. Civil Application does not survive.” 3 When the Court permits parties to withdraw the Petition with liberty this itself means; the party is permitted to take appropriate steps in accordance with law; and including a permission to file a fresh petition. The word “liberty” thus cannot construed as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents to mean that the liberty was granted only to make representations and/or to invoke other remedy except filling of fresh writ petition. There is no reason to accept the contentions so raised and put any condition. The liberty was unconditional. The Petitioner is entitled to take steps and/or invoke remedy whatever available. It also includes filling of the fresh petition. 4 With this the order is clarified accordingly. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)