1 20.wp-6225-11 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6225 OF 2011 Lafarge Aggregates and Concrete India Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation of The City of Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pradeep Sancheti Sr. Counsel with Mr. Ameya Gokhale and Mr. R.A.Iyer i/b Khaitan and Co. for Petitioner. Mr. Mandar Limaye for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 22nd August, 2011 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2 The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.7.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner whereby the petitioner is directed to remove R.M.C. plant since the same was operated by the petitioner without permission. 2 20.wp-6225-11 3 At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the instructions from the Executive Engineer made a statement that the following facts are not in dispute. 4 The permission was granted to the petitioner to construct R.M.C. plant vide communication/ order dated 16.7.2010 for a period of three years with the rider that the petitioner should get it renewed every six months. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner made an application dated 7.1.2011 for renewal. However, no order came to be passed by the authorities within a period of sixty days and therefore, by virtue of deemed fiction 45 (5) of MRTP Act, the permission was deemed to have been granted and therefore, the petitioner continued to operate the said plant. It is submitted that the respondents by impugned order dated 29.7.2011 directed the petitioner to remove the R.M.C. plant on the ground that the respondents did not renew the permission and therefore, directed the petitioner to remove the said plant. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has now made an application dated 13.7.2011 for renewal as per the procedure applicable in this regard which is pending before the authorities for appropriate orders. 3 20.wp-6225-11 5 It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the application dated 7.1.2011 submitted by the petitioner for renewal came to be rejected on 13.7.2011 admittedly after 60 days. It is also not in dispute that on 13.7.2011 the petitioner filed another application for further renewal before the authorities. 6 The counsel for the respondents in these peculiar circumstances, has submitted that the order dated 29.7.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner which is impugned in the present petition is concerned, the respondents do not intend to act upon the same and shall re-consider the application of the petitioner dated 13.7.2011 for renewal afresh and in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of three weeks. 7 On the backdrop of above referred facts, particularly in view of the statement made by respondents, the cause of action in the present petition no more survives. Hence, the petition is accordingly disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [D. D. SINHA, J.]