1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1034 OF 2009 Mrs. Kanika Subir Golder ... Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Grater of Mumbai and others ... Respondents Shri Devamani Shukla i/by Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioner Shri S. Murthy for respondents 4 to 7, 11 to 13,15 to22, 24, 25, 28 to 31, 33 to 35, 37 to 44 and 47 to 53 Ms. S. Alemao i/by Mr. Om Prakash Shukla for respondent no.3, Mr. S.S. Pakale for BMC CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 17th December, 2009. P. C. 1. Mr. Pakale, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation states that the Corporation has served 36 notices on the members of the society who have carried out unauthorised constructions. He states that the notices have been issued against the other members also but they could not be served because their flats were locked. He states that those notices will also be served. He further submitted that the notices will be pursued and necessary action will be taken. He states that if the notices are challenged, the Corporation will defend them diligently. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the fact that the Corporation has taken action, he has instructions to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach this Court, in case the Corporation does not pursue the notices. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in case the petitioner is not satisfied with the action taken by the Corporation. 3. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (RANJANA DESAI, J.) jpc/-