MAHESH NANDIRAM KHILOLANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) Even before the matter could be heard on merit, Mr.Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate for Vadodara Municipal Corporation draws attention of this Court to the averments made in para 4 of the the affidavit in reply dtd. 27/6/2017 filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Para 4 of the said affidavit reads as under:

(3.) By pointing out to the aforesaid affidavit in reply, learned advocate Mr.Nanavati states that notice which is under challenge by way of this petition has already been acted upon, and therefore, this petition has become infructuous. On instructions, learned advocate Mr.Nanavati further states that once the encroachment was removed, the petitioner applied for revised permission, which has been granted by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed at the relevant point of time and nothing remains to be done in the present petition.