ORDER : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. On 7.4.2017, when the matter came up on board, this Court adjourned the matter to today by passing the following order: 2. It is represented that, earlier also, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of similar petition being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 251 of 2015, which is disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 14.12.2015 Though a copy of the said order is not annexed along with the papers in the petition, but during the course of hearing, same is placed on record. 3. On a perusal of the earlier order dated 14.12.2015, it is clear that this Court has issued directions to the Municipal Commissioner to consider the representation of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in spite of such directions, the representation was not considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner to supply one set of papers to the learned advocate, Mr. Satyam Chhaya, who is appearing for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. This matter be placed on board on 11th April, 2017 by showing the name of Shri Satyam Chhaya as the learned counsel appearing for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. 4. Today, during the course of mentioning, learned counsel for the petitioner made a mention seeking permission dismissal of the petition as not pressed, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority by making a representation in light of the direction issued by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition (PIL) No. 251 of 2015. 5. In view of the request, the petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to approach the appropriate authority by making representation. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.