-: 1 :- wp-989/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LD. NO. 989 OF 2011 Merind Limited. ..Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior counsel i/b Majmudar & Co., for the petitioner. Mr. Kevic Setalwad with Mr. Vinod Joshi for R-1. Ms. Smita Gaidhane, AGP for R-2 & 3. Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. Date : June 14, 2011. P. C. : 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that after filing of this petition, the petitioner has been served with a letter dated 31/5/2011 accompanied by Order dated 3/5/2005 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers. The petitioner wants to file a fresh petition challenging the said order. Counsel further submits that the petitioner may, therefore, be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a comprehensive petition challenging the order srp -: 2 :- wp-989/11 dated 3/5/2005 and also the demands based on the said order. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, deposited with the Collector an amount of Rs.67,72,81,000/-, i.e., the entire demand raised by the 1st respondent on the petitioner. Counsel further submits that to facilitate the petitioner to file a fresh petition, the petitioner wants copies of certain documents, which are detailed in its letter dated 8th June 2011 addressed to the 1st respondent. Counsel submits that the 1st respondent may be directed to give copies of the said documents to the petitioner. 2. In the circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that the petitioner has deposited the entire dues with the 2nd respondent and that after filing of the present petition, the 1st respondent vide its letter dated 31/5/2011, has served on the petitioner a copy of order dated 3/5/2005 by which the petitioner is stated to be aggrieved, we see no reason why the petitioner should not be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty as prayed for. The petition is therefore allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. -: 3 :- wp-989/11 3. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent states that since the petitioner has deposited all the dues, there is no question of taking any coercive steps against the petitioner. Needless to state that the 1st respondent will be at liberty to appropriate this amount towards the amount, which according to the 1st respondent is due to the 1st respondent from the petitione. Needless to state further that this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and in case the petitioner succeeds in its challenge raised in the petition, the 1st respondent will make good the said amount alongwith interest. The said amount will abide by the order that may be passed in the petition which will be filed by the petitioner. 4. So far as the Collector’s process charges are concerned, the 2nd respondent will be entitled to the same as per the Rules prescribed therefor. 5. Insofar as the demand for documents made by the petitioner vide its letter dated 8th June 2011 is concerned, counsel for the 1st respondent states that the 1st respondent will make a genuine effort to supply the documents which are -: 4 :- wp-989/11 referred to by the petitioner in its letter dated 8th June 2011, if they are available with the 1st respondent. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 3/5/2005 was received by it alongwith letter dated 31/5/2011. We must note that it is the contention of the 1st respondent that this order was always known to the petitioner. We express no opinion on this aspect. 7. Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. (Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.) (Ranjit More, J.)