IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 488 OF 2008 SHRI. GEORGE L. FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, AGA For R. 1 To 3. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SANTOSH BORA, JJ. Date:- 13th August, 2008 P.C. Heard. The petitioner prays for Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw and/or rescind the Notification dated 18.04.08 and further to quash and set aside the decision of the Government to invoke Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As far as the notification dated 18.04.2008 is concerned, a copy thereof is annexed as Exhibit A colly and it is declaring that the lands specified in the Schedule are needed for public purpose. The Government, however, proceeded to state that under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the urgency clause can be applied to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. One of the challenge in the petition is to the decision to invoke Section 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act and dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A thereof. Time was taken on the last occasion by the learned AG to take instructions. Today, when the matter is placed before us, the learned Advocate General on instructions makes a statement that the Government will not dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and it would be open for the petitioner to raise objections to the proposed acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act. He states that the objections will be duly considered and further steps, if necessary, will be initiated only thereafter. In the light of this statement and the major challenge in the petition, not surviving, we do not see any reason to keep the petition pending. Needless to state that all contentions raised in the petition so also all objections to the proposed acquisition are open to be raised in the enquiry and merely because we have disposed off the petition, it does not mean that the Court has expressed any opinion on the correctness and validity thereof. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SANTOSH BORA, J. arp/*