IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2925 OF 1990 PETITION NO. 2925 OF 1990 PETITION NO. 2925 OF 1990 Vasai Vachava Samiti and anr. .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Mihir Desai for Petitioner. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Rajendra Savant for Respondent No. 3. Mr. Subodh Joshi for Respondent No. 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3359 OF 1990 Marcus Dabre and Ors. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mrs. Neeta P. Karnik for Petitioner. Mr. N.P. Deshpande for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4. Mr. Rajendra Savant for Respondent No. 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & DR. DR. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,JJ. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,JJ. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 P.C. . The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2925 of 1990 had challenged certain notifications which had the effect of converting a sizeable portion of Vasai Taluka from G-Zone to an urbanisable zone . In the affidavit filed by Sudhakar Nangnure, Deputy Secretary, it is set out that Government of Maharashtra has appointed CIDCO as Special Planning Authority for the Vasai and Virar Region and the said authority has published interim development plan. Subsequent thereto, respondent No. 1 2 appointed three member committee under the Chairmanship of Metropolitan Commissioner and that committee has submitted draft development to the State Government for sanction under Section 30 of the said Act on 29.9.2004. . During the pendency of the petition, by notification dated 23.9.1999 published in the official gazzette dated 23.9.1999 a new regional plan has been notified. A copy of the same is placed on record. Once the new regional plan is notified, the challenge as made which are based on earlier regional plan have become infructuous. . It is therefore, open to the Petitioners, if still aggrieved by the new regional plan to challenge the same, if so advised according to law. . In the light of that rule discharged in both the petitions. No order as to costs. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO,J.) REBELLO,J.) REBELLO,J.) (DR. (DR. (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.) D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.) D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)