1 CAI144.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2009 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 68 OF 2009 Golden Swan Country Club. ... Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8239 OF 2010, 2982 OF 2009, 2988 OF 2009 AND 9823 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CAI NO.17 OF 2009 IN PIL 68 OF 2009, WITH CAI53/2009, WITH CAI94/2009, WITH CAI95/2009, WITH CAI125/2009,WITH CAI14/2010, WITH CAI145/2009, WITH CAI146/2009, WITH CAI15/2010, WITH CAI162/2010, WITH CAI144/2009,WITH CAI146/2009 AND CAI(ST)23802/2009 IN PIL 68/2009. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for the applicants. Ms. M.P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Mandar Limaye for respondent No.3. Mr. S.M. Oak i/by Mr. Sagar Joshi for respondent Nos.5 to 8. Mr. V.A. Gangal with Mr. Ashok Gade for applicant in C.A.No.14 of 2010 in PI9L 68 of 2009. Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anup Deshmukh for petitioner in W.P. No.8239 of 2010. Mr. Vaibhav Patankar for respondent No.12. 2 CAI144.09 CORAM : MOHIT SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. THURSDAY, 6TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is an application for modification/recalling of the order dated 9th December, 2009, passed in Civil Application No.126 of 2009 filed by the writ petitioners in PIL No.68 of 2009. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties extensively, we find that the applicant-club was deleted from the array of parties in the above PIL by order dated 16th September, 2009. It is, therefore, obvious that no order to the prejudice of the applicant-club or its members could have been passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard. 3. On this ground alone, we recall the order dated 9th December, 2009 in Civil Application No.126 of 2009. 4. We also make it clear that recalling the said order does not amount to expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy about the restrictions being imposed by the Forest Department, which is the subject matter of the controversy in a substantive Writ Petition No.8239 of 2010. 5. The Civil Application, accordingly, stands disposed of. 3 CAI144.09 6. If the petitioner in PIL No.68 of 2009 is inclined to take out any other proceedings, the writ petitioner will be at liberty to do so after serving a copy of the petition/application on the applicant-club. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.