[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1800 OF 2008 M/s. Neha Developers ... Petiltioners. Vs. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai. ... Respondents. Mr. Aspi Chinoy Sr. Counsel alongwith Mr. D.D.Mehta i/b,. D.M.Letal and Associates for the Petitioners. Mrs. Archana Joshi for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar and and and Sri Sri Sri A.A.Sayed, J. A.A.Sayed, J. A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : August 13, 2008. : August 13, 2008. : August 13, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the [ 2 ] application for amendment of the plans was submitted on 7th February, 2008 by the petitioner but that is not being processed by the Corporation solely on the acount of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1107 of 2007, on the assumption that Yesh Developers who is the confirming party to the agreement between the owner and the petitioner in relation to the purchase of the property in question, have been directed to maintain status quo in relation to their property in the said writ petition. The corporation apprehends that since the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1077/2007 directs maintenance of status quo, it may amount to contempt of Court if the papers submitted by the petitioner are processed. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation, taking instructions from the concerned officer states that the property in question is in no way concerned with the matter in Writ Petition No. 1077/2007, which fact is also clearly stated by the petitioner. Being so, we see no reason for the hesitation on the part of the Corporation to process the papers submitted by the petitioner on the basis of order passed in Writ Petition No. 1107/2007. Since the said petition is in no way related to the property [ 3 ] in question, the Corporation is expected to process the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 3. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the points sought to be raised in this petition, as the Corporation has to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]