1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2025 OF 2011. Devendra Tukaram Sawarkar and another. .Vrs. State of Maharashtra, thr. its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Shri M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for petitioner.) Shri Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Shri S. K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri Kale, Advocate for respondent No.5.) CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 25th July, 2011. Heard, Shri Dhatrak, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, learned Senior Counsel Shri Dharmadhikari with learned Counsel Shri Kale, for respondent No.5 and learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 points out that action in terms of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ( In short ”the MRTP Act”) is initiated against the construction of respondent 2 No.5. On 23/06/2011, the notice under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act is already issued. He, therefore, states that, grievance in the present matter is rendered infructuous. Shri Dhatrak, learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that, if in the process any orders in favour of respondent No.5 are to be passed, the petitioners should be heard. It is apparent that, appropriate steps have now been initiated and therefore, the respondent No.3 has to follow the steps as envisaged in M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. If, the petitioner is aggrieved became of any such steps / orders or then his grievance still survives legally thereafter, he can always approach this Court, in the matter. Hence, with that liberty to petitioners, present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Deshmukh.