IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 218 OF 2008 M/S. PANCHBHOOMI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA BY DIRECTOR (SEZ) AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General With Ms. R. Chodankar, Addl. Govt.Advocat for the respondent Nos.4. Mr. J. Vaz, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Coram:- S.A. BOBDE & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 24th June, 2008 P.C. 1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The first prayer is for writ of prohibition directing the respondent No.3 i.e. the Director of SEZ, Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry for not to take further steps pursuant to the show cause notice dated 31.3.2008. The other prayers are inter alia the directions to the respondent No.3 to forthwith revoke, withdraw the show cause notice dated 31.3.2008 and drop the show cause proceedings initiated by letter dated 31.3.2008. There is another prayer that the respondent No.4 to forthwith revoke the withdrawal of the recommendation contained in letter dated 7.1.2008. 3. There is no dispute by the petitioners that the petitioners have replied to the show cause notice and have shown cause against the subject of the show cause notice and also showed cause against the main issue and also have raised the contention that the respondent No.4, Govt. of Goa cannot withdraw the recommendation as they have done in the letter dated 7.1.2008. Mr. Vaz, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 states that the matter is pending decision before the respondent No.2, who will take a decision after the hearing is over. Having regard to the settled position of law reiterated by the Lordships in the case of Union of India and another Versus Kunisetty Satyanaran, reported in AIR 2007 SCC 906(1), this petition is not liable to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say that all the issues will be decided by the respondent No.2 on merits. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. SMA