IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.352 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.352 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.352 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.1022 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.1022 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.1022 OF 2000 L.R.Bhattad & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.T.N.Subramamian i/b. M/s. Vimadalal & Co. for petitioners. Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar i/b. George D. Ass. - Intervenor. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 26TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 26TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 26TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 states that he has instructions to make the following statement:- " That in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, MHADA has no objection to the modification of the order dated 4th October, 2000 dispensing with the fresh written consents from the tenants in view of the fact that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has - = : 2 : = - already sanctioned plans from tenements admeasuring 225 sq. ft. on the present FSI which is 2.5. This will however not be a precedent. " 2. Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 further states that they will issue a fresh communication to the Corporation as the Corporation has issued stop work notice on the previous letter issued by MHADA. 3. In view of the statement made by counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, counsel for the petitioners does not press this Notice of Motion. 4. Notice of Motion is disposed of as not pressed. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J.