1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 789 OF 2010 Suresh Mehta ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 753 OF 2010 Kissan Hemani ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 754 OF 2010 K.P. Hari ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 755 OF 2010 S.N. Nakhate ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 791 OF 2010 Nimesh Trivedi ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents 2 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 792 OF 2010 Panna S Mehta ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 793 OF 2010 Rushabh Mehta ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 794 OF 2010 Ghia Jitendra Bhogilal ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 797 OF 2010 Gathani Geeta ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 813 OF 2010 R.S. Pariyani ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents 3 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 814 OF 2010 Illa R. Trivedi ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 816 OF 2010 R.S. Pariyani ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 817 OF 2010 Anil Ravesia ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and another ).. Respondents Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, a/w Mr.M.I. Naik for the Petitioner. Mrs. Geeta Jogalekar for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 3RD MAY 2010 P.C. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the proposal for regularization is pending before the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and by virtue of Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, the impugned notice 4 gets suspended. In view of this, the Petitioner does not want to prosecute the Writ Petitions with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 2. Writ Petitions allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.