: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3258 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.3258 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.3258 OF 2000 M/s.Ajinkya Builders ... Petitioners V/s. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents None for Petitioners CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 15, 2005 FEBRUARY 15, 2005 FEBRUARY 15, 2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . By this Petition, the Petitioners have sought the following prayers: (a) the Honourable Court be pleased to declare that Section 27 of the Consumers’ Protection Act is not legal, bad-in-law and ultra vires against the Constitution of India; (b) that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Consumers’ Disputes and Redressal Forum dated 7th April, 2000 in Complaint No.RA-31/2000 in Complaint Application No.452 of 1995 be quashed and set aside by this Honourable Court; (c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 7th April, 2000 in Complaint No.RA/31/2000 in Complaint Application No.452/95 issued by the Redressal Forum, Nasik, under Section 27 of the Consumers’ Protection Act be stayed; : 2 : (d) Costs of this Application be provided for; (e) For such further and other reliefs as this Honourable Court Deems fit and proper. 2. Prayer clauses (c), (d) and (e) are consequential prayers. Prayer clause (a) challenges the constitutional validity of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act which has been held valid. Prayer clause (b) seeks quashing of show-cause notice. While granting Rule, interim stay was refused. Therefore, the show-cause notice must have been worked out by now. We, therefore, see no reason for keeping this petition pending. It is, accordingly, disposed off.