Shri. Satish Usapkar., v. Deputy Town Planner, Town And Country Planning Dept. And 5 ORS.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 6 OF 2017 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 10 OF 2016 SHRI. SATISH USAPKAR., ... Applicant

Versus

DEPUTY TOWN PLANNER, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPT. AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Sardessai, Additional Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Mr. D. Gaonkar, Advocate for the respondent No.6. Coram:- F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

Date:- 26th April, 2017 P.C.:

This is an application for speaking to the minutes. It is pointed out that this Court has observed inadvertently in para 11, 5th line thus 'the fact that the regional plan has not been notified, is not in dispute', which has been erroneously recorded when, in fact, it ought to have been recorded that the regional plan though notified is kept in abeyance in terms of Order dated 04/06/2012 issued by respondent No.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to that effect.

2. Hence, the application is partly allowed. The word "not" appearing at line 5 of para 11 of the Judgment dated 25/11/2016

CAREV/6/2017 stands deleted and the words "but, kept in abeyance in terms of Order dated 04/06/2012 issued by the respondent No.2" shall be added in the said sentence after the word "notified" and read. The Registry is, accordingly, directed to carry out the said amendment.

3. The application stands disposed of accordingly. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

F. M. REIS, J.

ssm.