The court extended time for amendment of information sought by the petitioner. The application was disposed of without any substantive disposal of the writ petition or the underlying cause. No legal proposition is established.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2012
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 631 OF 2011
MR. HUBERT SALDANHA Versus THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF TALEIGAO THROUGH ITS SARPANCH AND 10 ORS.,
... Applicant
... Respondents
Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. J. Cardozo, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Manish Salkar, Govt. Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 8. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for respondent No.9. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for respondent No.10. Mr. B. P. Natekar, Advocate for respondent No.11.
Coram:A. P. LAVANDE & U. V. BAKRE, JJ. Date:11th January, 2012
P.C.:-
Mr. Naik, appearing for respondent No.9 states that he will furnish certified copies of the plans and also the information sought by the petitioner within a period of one week. The statement made on behalf of respondent No.9 is accepted. Consequently, time to carry out the amendment is extended by two weeks from today.
Application stands disposed of.
A. P. LAVANDE, J.
U. V. BAKRE, J.
ssm.
MR. HUBERT SALDANHA
THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF TALEIGAO THROUGH ITS SARPANCH AND 10 ORS.
A. P. LAVANDE
U. V. BAKRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
