-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 57 OF 2008 Jayant Vasantrao Ghosalkar and others ).. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents Mr R G Ketkar i/b Mr S M Sabrad for the Petitioners. Mr P M Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr G H Keluskar for Respondent No.5. Mr V A Thorat i/b Mr Niranjan Mogre for Respondent No.6 CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED: 16TH OCTOBER 2008. P.C. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to the Municipal Council at Uran to take action in accordance with law on the unauthorised construction raised at Survey Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11-A1 situated at Mouje Mhatavali, Taluka Uran, District Raigad and not to grant sanction to the resolution dated 22nd March 2007 and other consequential reliefs. It is not necessary for us to notice the facts giving rise to the filing of the present Public Interest Litigation in any greater detail in view of the stand taken by the State Government as well as the -2- Municipal Council before the Court. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the survey number in question was reserved for a garden-cum-school. The proposal for change of the reservation has already been withdrawn by the Government vide its letter dated 7th February 2008. The learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council states that they had not sanctioned any plan but the construction at the site had been started for which they had served notice upon Respondent No.6. It is further stated that the Corporation shall take action in accordance with law and ensure that no unauthorized construction will be permitted on the site in question. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 without prejudice to his rights and contentions submits that they would move the Government for pursuing the matter in furtherance to the letter dated 1st April 2008. It is open to the Petitioners as well to challenge the order of the Government if now the reservation is changed, if permissible in accordance with law. 4. Be that as it may, in view of the statements made on behalf of the State and the Municipal Council, nothing survives in the present -3- Public Interest Litigation and the same is disposed of accordingly. Parties would obviously abide by their respective statements. We hope that the Municipal Council will take action expeditiously. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S. A. BOBDE, J.