JUDGMENT : F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. Mr. A. Talaulikar, learned Addl. Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondents. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents, the grievance of the petitioner is that a representation has been filed before the respondent no. 2 to take a decision on the complaints dated 13.10.2015 and 11.11.2015 filed by the petitioner. The dispute apparently prima facie appears to be of recognition of the status of the temple stated to be constructed by the petitioner. 5. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents points out that the decision on such representation would be taken on its own merits within eight weeks from today. Accepting the said statement, nothing survives in the above petition. Rule stands disposed of accordingly. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.