Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 29th March, 1997 passed by the Kandla Port Trust, Respondent No. 1 herein (hereafter to be referred to as ‘KPT’), by which allotment of plot No. 95 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the said plot’) in Sector No. 8, Gandhidham made in favour of Petitioner No. 2 came to be canceled with effect from 9.4.97. 2. Devoid of unnecessary details, facts leading to the present petition are as follows:— 2.1. Petitioners are the allottees and are in use and possession of the said plot allotted by the respondent KPT on lease granted in the year 1966. It is the case of the petitioners that in the winter season of 1996-97, there was a bumper crop of wheat in the country. Large quantity of wheat was to be exported and millions of tonnes of what was brought at Gandhidham for such export. Storing facilities at Gandhidham godown were inadequate. On several vacant plots, including that of the petitioners, wheat was stored in open area covered with tarpaulin sheets. The petitioners have stated that the situation was so grave that trucks had to wait for days in queue for unloading their goods. 2.2. Such storage of food-grains in the open caused sanitation and other problems. A public interest litigation came to be filed before the High Court by one Vasant V. Ambeskar being Special Civil Application No. 3544 of 1996. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25.2.1997, took note of the storage of food-grains in open recording that during monsoon season, the same would cause damage to the food-grains and also spread diseases. Despite notice was issued by KPT, such practice is not discontinued. Under the circumstances, the Court observed as under : “The Respondents No. 7 to 13, though served have not chosen to remain present before the Court. Mr. Brahmbhatt learned Advocate has placed on record letter dated 21.02.1997 addressed to him by Kandla Post Trust indicating the present position of construction and use of plots to whom notices have been issued. From the contents of the letter it is clear that the plot holders have not done anything even after issuance of the notices by Kandla Port Trust. We fail to understand as to why Kandla Port Trust has not taken any action which was required to be taken much earlier. From the contents of the letter it is clear that the plot holders have not done anything even after issuance of the notices by Kandla Port Trust. We fail to understand as to why Kandla Port Trust has not taken any action which was required to be taken much earlier. Under the circumstances we direct the Respondents No. 7 to 14 not to use the plots allotted to them by Kandla Port Trust without previous permission of this Court and Kandla Port Trust shall see that action is taken at the earliest as breach is committed.” 3. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 19.1.98 along with connected matters in which the Bench made the following observations: “. . . . . . . . At that time it appeared that the food grains which were not so stored had suffered heavy rains over them as a result of which hazardous situation was crated. This is the way in which the proceedings have been initiated and the civil applications are taken out by the plot holders. They were required to come before us because under the earlier orders dated 25.02.1997 it has been said that Kandla Port Trust shall cancel or terminate lease of the plot holders. Upon hearing learned Counsels aforementioned, we have gathered the impression that now the abovesaid menace does not survive. Only question which remains for our consideration is as to what action now should be taken by Kandla Port Trust and the respective plot holders. We feel that there has been a broad consensus between the Counsels who appear before us in the present group of matters for the plot holders. We shall, of course, have to notice that we have been deprived of the advantage of hearing learned Counsel Mr. Dastoor for the petitioner as he is found not to be present. We have preferred not to wait for the learned Counsel because all earlier orders would go to show that on earlier occasions also there was no representation whatsoever on behalf of the petitioner. We prefer to dispose of the present proceedings by saying that the plot holders who have taken out the four civil applications, which are being disposed of by the present orders may now approach the Chairman of Kandla Port Trust with the necessary applications for the review of the earlier orders. We prefer to dispose of the present proceedings by saying that the plot holders who have taken out the four civil applications, which are being disposed of by the present orders may now approach the Chairman of Kandla Port Trust with the necessary applications for the review of the earlier orders. The Chairman, Kandla Port Trust shall decide the abovesaid review applications with the sympathy which the same deserve. It shall be open for the Chairman of Kandla Port Trust to revoke or modify the orders of cancelling the lease of the plots. Consequently it shall be open for the Chairman of Kandla Port Trust to decide the proceedings which have been initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and if so found proper, the proceedings could be dropped by him.” 4. It appears that on account of pendency of the present petition, though the petitioners have also filed a review application pursuant to the above order dated 19.1.98, the same is not disposed of so far. It is not in dispute that the Court has granted order of status quo. Petitioners are thus in possession of the said plot and order of cancellation has not been given effect to. 5. On the basis of the above position, I am of the opinion that the review application filed by the petitioners should be decided by the authorities as desired by the Division Bench in its order dated 19.01.1998. In the present petition, the very same order of cancellation of lease is in challenge which the petitioners have requested for being reviewed by the authorities. Such review has been filed pursuant to the consensus arrived at before the High Court. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.01.1998 in which such consensus has been recorded is already noted above. 6. To my mind, the present petition need not be entertained at this stage at least since the authorities were directed to entertain and decide the review application of the petitioners. Such review application has been filed and is pending before the authorities. I am sure, the authorities will bear in mind the passage of time as well as the observations made by the Division Bench and take a reasonable view in the Review Application. Such review application has been filed and is pending before the authorities. I am sure, the authorities will bear in mind the passage of time as well as the observations made by the Division Bench and take a reasonable view in the Review Application. If, however, the ultimate decision in the review application is adverse to the petitioners, it would be open for them to challenge the same in accordance with law. Till the Review Application is decided, the order of cancellation of lease shall not be implemented. 7. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. P P P P P