:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 367 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 367 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 367 OF 2008 Vijaya Bhosale & Ors. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. K. Shinde i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar for the Petitioners. Mr. D. A. Nalawade, G.P. for the State - Respondent No.1. Mr. Parsuramia for the Respondent No.4. Mr. Janak Dwarkadas i/b. Kunal Cheema for the Respondent No.5. Mr. T. N. Subramaniam i/b. Mr. Y. M. Chaudhari for the Respondent No. 6. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1808 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Bench of this court on 29.1.2008. The Bench found that the controversy raised in the petition was squarely covered by earlier Full Bench Judgment of this Court dated :2: 1.11.2007 in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & others [Writ Petition No. 1326 of 2007]. The learned counsel for the petitioners at that stage sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file representation before the High Power Committee. It appears that after this order was passed, the petitioners did not approach the High Power Committee but they approached the respondents again on 11.2.2008 and on 15.2.2008 respondents informed the petitioners that in view of the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 1808 of 2007, there was no occasion for them to interfere in the matter and the notices issued earlier be complied with. Notices issued earlier were the notices of 30.5.2007 and 7.8.2007. Both these notices were challenged in the earlier petition. The petitioners are trying to make out a fresh cause of action on the basis of the letter dated 15.2.2008. The petitioners have again filed almost the same petition. Even if letter dated 15.2.2008 is quashed by this court, the notices issued earlier in terms of Section 95 A(2) of MHADA Act, 1976 will stand. Therefore, this is only an attempt by the petitioners to seek a remedy again from this court for which the remedy has been :3: refused by this Court. This is a blatant abuse of the process of the law and deserves to be condemned. The petitioners sought permission to withdraw this petition but in view of the conduct of the petitioners, we do not allow this prayer and we dismiss this petition and hold that in view of the conduct of the petitioners they do not deserve any sympathy from this court or from any other Statutory Authority. Petition is dismissed. Costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the Petitioners to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, Mumbai. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)