dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 84 OF 2010 Vinita D. Narawankr ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Suresh P. Chaugale for petitioner. Mr. Miind Morfe, AGP., for the State. Ms. A.J. Almaida for respondent nos. 3 & 4. Ms. K.P. Panjabi for B.M.C. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2011 P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent nos. 3 and 4 have carried out illegal construction contrary to the Corporation Rules and Bye Laws. The learned counsel for the Corporation says that the Corporation has already given notice under Section 351 of the B.M.C. Act and that appropriate order will be passed in accordance with law after hearing respondent nos. 3 and 4. She says that appropriate action will be taken. In view of the same, nothing survives in the petition. The petition stands disposed of. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.