1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.20 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1103 OF 2006 Vanita Harishchandra Vengurlekar. ...Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and another. ...Respondents --- Ms.Usha Purohit, for Petitioner. Mr.C.J.Sawant i/b. S.P.Thorat, for Respondent no.2. Mr.J.Reis i/b. Ramesh Ramamurthy, Applicant in support in chamber summons no.108/07. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH,J. DATED: 16th April,2007 2 P.C.:- 1. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 states that a flat has already been allotted to the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, however, states that the petitioner has not accepted that allotment and that the petitioner is not interested in keeping the flat which has been allotted to her. The statements made by both the learned Counsel are accepted. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that the petitioner is not interested in keeping the flat that has been allotted to her, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 states that the respondent no.2 withdraws the order dated 4.10.2006 a copy of which is at “Exhibit F” to this contempt petition. He further states that the respondent no.2 shall make a fresh order in relation to the flat no.601, CTS no.822 situated at Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, in accordance with law and after granting an opportunity of being heard to all the persons including the petitioner whose interest are likely to be adversely affected by this order. The learned Counsel further states that this will be done within a period of eight weeks from today. The statement is accepted. 3 2. In view of the statements made by the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2, on a motion made by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. ---