JUDGMENT : M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. 3. The petitioner, by instituting this petition, has applied for the following substantive reliefs : (a) For judgment and order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the Respondent no.2 to decide the complaint dated 23.09.2021 and to revoke the development permission dated 06.01.2021 granted by Respondent no.2. (b) For an order suspending operation of the development permission dated 06.01.2021 till the compliant dated 23.09.2021 is decided by Respondent no.2. (c) For an order directing the Respondent no.3 to maintain status quo on the complaint dated 17.01.2019 till the complaint dated 23.09.2021 is decided by Respondent no.2. 4. Mr. Noorani, learned Counsel for the Mormugao Planning & Development Authority (respondent no.2), on instructions, makes a statement that respondent no.2 will decide the petitioner's complaint dated 23.09.2021, as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within three months from today. This statement is accepted and respondent no.2 is directed to act accordingly. 5. The Mormugao Planning & Development Authority will have to comply with the principles of natural justice and fair play. This will mean a grant of an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner as well as respondent nos.4 & 5. Respondent no.2 to decide whether an oral hearing is to be given or whether liberty is to be granted to file written submissions to the parties to explain their respective versions having regard to the pandemic. 6. Mr. Mahambrey submits that pending decision by respondent no.2 the development permission granted on 06.01.2021 should be suspended. 7. According to us, no such relief can be granted particularly, because Mr. Mahambrey himself pointed out that the construction is almost complete. All that we can say, at this stage, is that the construction already carried out or for that matter further construction, if any, will be subject to the orders that will be made by respondent no.2 on the petitioner's complaint. This means that respondents nos.4 & 5 will not be entitled to claim any equities. 8. So far as prayer clause 'c' is concerned, Mr. This means that respondents nos.4 & 5 will not be entitled to claim any equities. 8. So far as prayer clause 'c' is concerned, Mr. Mahambrey submits that respondent no.3 Council, based on the development permission dated 06.01.2021, is likely to dismiss the petitioner's complaint. Since the decision of respondent no.3 will depend upon the decision that respondent no.2 takes on the petitioner's plea for revocation of development permission dated 06.02.2021, it will be appropriate if respondent no.3 decides the petitioner's complaint dated 17.01.2019 only after the respondent no.2 decides the petitioner's complaint dated 23.09.2021. This is, in fact, the request made by Mr. Mahambrey on behalf of the petitioner. 9. The Rule in this petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the rival contentions and, therefore, all contentions of the petitioner, as well as respondent nos.4 & 5, are expressly kept open to be agitated before the appropriate authorities. At the request of Mr. V.A. Lawande, it is clarified that even objections to the locus standi of the petitioner are kept open. 10. This petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no orders for costs.