1 wp-7872.10-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7872 OF 2010 Manisha Mahila Magasvargiy Co-op. Consumer Society Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7873 OF 2010 Mauli Mahila Magasvargiy Co-op. Consumer Society Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7895 OF 2010 Sonia Mahila Magasvargiy Co-op. Consumer Society Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7908 OF 2010 Kolhati Samaj Bhakti Co-op. Consumer Society Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. WITH 2 wp-7872.10-- WRIT PETITION NO. 7909 OF 2010 Sant Rohidas Mahila Magasvargiy Co-op. Consumer Society Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. H.S.Venegavkar for the petitioners. Vijay Patil, GP with A.B.Vagyani, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 2nd February 2011. P.C. : Writ Petition Nos.7908/2010 and 7909/2010 are not on board. By consent of parties these two petitions are taken on board and all the petitions are heard together. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra dated 2nd February, 2011 the following statement is made: “I further say that the Director Marketing, Pune has recommended to the Government to provide them the budget provision of Rs.52 lakh for the said scheme for the financial year 2011-12. Since the scheme is under state plan, we shall submit the 3 wp-7872.10-- proposal to the Planning and Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra, for plan outlay and budgetory provision for the said scheme. We will give financial assistance to above mentioned co- operative consumer societies in financial year 2011-12 as early as possible, provided they are found eligible for the same.“ 3. In view of the above statement, we hope that the State of Maharashtra shall make appropriate budgetary provision in their budget to be projected for the year 2011-12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the statement, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw these petitions keeping all rival contentions open. All these petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)