JUDGMENT : (Per Devinder Gupta, C.J.) Heard. 2. Four writ petitions were decided by the common order, which was challenged in these Appeals. Two writ petitions, namely, W.P.Nos.35228 and 35235 of 1998, questioning the cancellation orders in Permit Nos. 172/17/80 and 172/17/89, dated 26-6-1998 were dismissed. The other two writ petitions, namely, W.P.Nos. 18593 and 20579 of 1998, filed by the neighbours seeking quashing of G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 25-5-1998 were partly allowed on the ground that already, a Division Bench of this Court had quashed G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 30-7-1998, which was on similar lines as that of G.O.Ms.No.289. Therefore, relying on the said Division Bench judgment, G.O.Ms.No.289, dated: 25-5-1998 was also quashed. While quashing the said G.O., the Municipal Corporation was directed to issue notices to the owners of the building for removal of the deviated and unauthorized constructions, within a period of three months from the date of such notice and on their failure to comply with the said notice, the Corporation was directed to carry out the said action, at the cost of the owners of the building, within a further period of three months thereafter. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 7-1-2003, whereas Ordinance No.1 of 2003 was published on 2-1-2003 providing for regularization of certain unauthorized constructions made and the Ordinance had also revived G.O.Ms.No.419, dt. 30-7-1998, under which the application of the appellants seeking regularization was pending before the Municipal Authorities. But, unfortunately, the said Ordinance was not taken note of by the learned Single Judge and the writ petitions of the appellants were dismissed. 5. The learned counsel, Mr. G.S.Rao, for the 5th respondent in Writ Appeal No. 633 of 2003, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.18593 of 1998, contended that the Ordinance, which has the effect of nullifying the judgment of the Court is void and cannot be taken benefit of, for which, reliance was placed by him on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Baktawar Trust and others v. M.D. Narayan and others : (2003) 4 SCC 104 and Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P. 2003 (3) Supreme 800 . 6. We are informed that the Ordinance has been replaced by Act. 7. v. State of U.P. 2003 (3) Supreme 800 . 6. We are informed that the Ordinance has been replaced by Act. 7. Since the validity of the Ordinance or the provisions of the Act is not challenged, the same cannot be gone into. In so far as the submission of the appellants against the dismissal of the writ petitions is concerned, there is hardly any ground to interfere with the same. However, in view of the provisions of the Act which has replaced the Ordinance, the appellants are entitled for consideration of their application seeking regularization incase G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 30-7-1998 is applicable to the appellants. Therefore, while dismissing the appeals of the appellants, we modify the ultimate directions issued against the Municipal Corporation stating that before issuing notices to the owners of the building for removing unauthorized constructions, the Municipal Corporation shall consider the representation from the appellants seeking regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.419, dated: 30-7-1998 and in the facts and circumstances of the case, and, pass appropriate orders thereon, and, in case, it is decided not to regularize the unauthorized constructions, the Municipal Corporation shall abide by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The Municipal Corporation will take appropriate action within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the order. No costs.