1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 16 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL application NO. 931 OF 2003 Dist.: KOLHAPUR Prakash Bhiksheth Kesarkar & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Gauri Godse for the Petitioners Mrs. P.S. Cardoza, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State Mr. M.R Suryawanshi for Respondent No. 5. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: APRIL 30, 2008 P. C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15th October, 1999 passed by respondent No. 3, the Additional Collector, District Kolhapur, and the communication dated 16th January, 2002 issued by respondent No. 2, the Director of Archaeology and Museums. It was the case of the petitioners that there 2 was a fort, which was a historical monument, and respondent No. 5 was issued a No Objection Certificate by respondent No. 3 to make certain construction, which could not be made in accordance with law. The further prayers were that all steps should be taken to protect the historical monument by the concerned respondents, and encroachments, if any, should be removed. 3. When this Court entertained the matter, respondent No. 5 filed a reply-affidavit, in which he stated that the matter was pending before the Civil Court, where one of the parties had filed a suit, and an injunction was operating. This injunction was not brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 5. Therefore, he had issued No Objection Notice. During the pendency of these proceedings, he has already withdrawn the No Objection Certificate, which is the subject- matter of this Writ Petition. The main relief claimed in the petition is quashing of the No Objection Notice issued by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 5. That notice has already been withdrawn. Therefore, there are no further orders needed to be passed in this Writ Petition. 4. We are also informed by respondent No. 2's counsel that the 3 conduct of petitioner No.3 needs to be noticed. He filed a suit in a Civil Court for same relief, being Reg. Civil Suit No. 18 of 2001. The suit was for injunction in respect of the same property, for the construction of which respondent No. 2 had issued No Objection Certificate. Petitioner No.3 filed the suit as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, but when Gram Panchayat pointed out that it had not authorised petitioner No.3 to file his suit, he withdrew the suit and filed another suit, viz., Reg. Civil Suit No. 148 of 2001 in his own name, which is still pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur. 5. In the above view of the matter, we do not think that any further orders are necessary to be passed. The Writ Petition is dismissed. All interim orders granted earlier are vacated. 6. Consequently, the Civil application does not survive, and the same stands disposed of accordingly. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.P. BHANGALE, J.