1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PIL NO. 68 OF 2008 Mrs. Roshan S. Sane and Ors. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr.Counsel with Mr. Deepak Chitnis for the Petitioner. Mr. N.P .Deshpande, A.G.P. For R. Nos. 1 to 3 and 7. Ms. Sharmila V. Deshmukh for R.No. 6. Mr. O.A. Dubey for R. No. 8. Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/by M/s. Little & Co. for R. No. 9. Mr. P. P. Chavan with Mr. Suhas Patil and Ms. R.J. Nathani i/by Navdeep Vora & Associates for R. No. 10. Ms. Neelam Nikale for Applicant in C.A. NO. 39 of 2010. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 17TH MARCH, 2010 P. C.: This court on 14th January, 2010 had noted that the water supply to the Unit had been cut off. Further the direction was issued to disconnect electric supply. That was done. Respondent No. 4 was given advise to take steps to remove deficiencies pointed out by the Pollution Control Board and thereafter get inspection done. The Petitioners thereafter moved this 2 court contending that the deficiencies have been removed and they had applied for inspection. We therefore, directed the Pollution Control Board to carry out inspection. Today the Board has placed before us the report prepared by the committee chaired by Dr. B.N. Thorat, Professor UDCT (I) Mumbai. Considering the recommendations given, in our opinion, it will not be possible to grant any relief to Respondent No. 4 as of today. However, we find that on 17.3.2010, the Member Secretary has communicated to Respondent No. 4, the decision of the Board which reads as under : “Taking into consideration the visit & inspection report submitted by the committee appointed by the Board, the Board is not considering grant of permission to restart to the Respondent industry on account of observations made by the committee”. Thus in so far as Board is concerned, it has acted on the recommendations and has decided not to grant permission for restarting. Once that be the case, in our opinion, nothing further survives in so far as this petition is concerned. However, Respondent No. 4, if advised can challenge the report and the decision by the Board independently. 3 With the above observations, Petition stands disposed of. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, they can take steps to which they are entitled to in law. (A.A. SAYED,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)