1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3437 OF 2007 (The Kasturba Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. State and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2008 Heard Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5, Shri Choube, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3, and Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.4 that this is second round of litigation filed by the petitioner for the same cause of action involved in Writ Petition No. 5023/2005. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel that prayer clauses (a) 2 and (b) in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner were identical to the prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the present petition and this Court passed the following order on 18.10.2005 in the earlier petition : “Shri Gordey, leanred Counsel for the petitioner, states that in view of reply dated 17.10.2005 filed on behalf of respondent no.2, grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. However, so far as prayer clause (b) of the petition is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that issue pertaining to the same may be kept open. Since grievance of the petitioner is redressed, the petition is disposed of accordingly. However, issue pertaining to prayer clause (b) of the petition is kept open.” Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute factual aspect of the matter. However, learned Counsel submits that earlier petition was disposed of in view of statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent no.4. Shri Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5, states that pursuant to aforesaid order, certain steps are being taken and process is going on. We have considered the above referred facts and also verified the prayer clauses of both the petitions, which are 3 completely identical and, therefore, on this ground itself, it is difficult for us to show any indulgence since present petition itself, in our view, is not maintainable. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1, 2 and 5 has made a statement that some steps are being taken pursuant to order dated 18.10.2005 passed by this Court in the earlier petition. Be that as it may, the present petition is disposed of as not maintainable. JUDGE JUDGE khj