IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 9 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 76 OF 2008 CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PVT. LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEY R. P. P. ALVENKAR ... Applicant Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Ms. Sudha Pai Kir, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. None for respondent no.3, though served. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 18th January, 2011 P.C. Heard Ms. Pai Kir, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. None appears on behalf of respondent no.3, though served. 2. By this application, the applicant, who is the appellant in Appeal from Order No.76/2008 seeks review of the order dated 19th March, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 3. The applicant preferred Appeal from Order no.76/2008 against the order dated 5th June, 2008 passed by the District Judge-I, North Goa, Panaji Fast Track Court in Civil Suit No.3/2008 by which the application for injunction sought by the applicant against the respondents was dismissed. However, respondent no.3/ defendant no.3 was restrained from carrying out any mining activity or extracting any ore or transporting any ore from Survey No.7 of Village Ambelim without obtaining requisite licence/ permission from the competent authorities of Government of Goa. 4. As stated above, the said order was challenged. The learned Judge by the order dated 19th March, 2009 dismissed the appeal. However, while dismissing the appeal, the learned Judge modified the order passed by the trial Court by which defendant no.3 was restrained from carrying out any mining activity without obtaining permission/ licence from the competent authorities of Government of Goa. 5. Ms. Pai Kir, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in an appeal preferred by the appellant/ applicant, injunction in favour of respondent no.3 could not have been vacated when respondent no.3 had not filed an appeal challenging the said order. At the most, this Court could have dismissed the appeal, but could not have passed order in favour of the respondent in the absence of any proceedings having been taken by respondent no.3 against the injunction granted against respondent no.3. 6. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned order and submitted that no case has been made out for review of the impugned order. 7. Indisputably, the appeal was preferred by the applicant against the impugned order by which the trial Court refused injunction in favour of the applicant. In the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the trial Court has granted injunction restraining defendant no.3 from carrying out any mining activity or extracting any ore or transporting any ore from Survey No.7 of village Ambelim without obtaining permission/ licence from the competent authorities of Government of Goa. Indisputably, defendant no.3 / respondent no.3 has not challenged the impugned order. This being the position, the learned Judge could not have vacated the injunction granted by the trial Court against respondent no.3 in the absence of any challenge by respondent no.3. The applicant could not have been put in worse condition in his appeal. At the most, this Court could have dismissed the appeal preferred against the order refusing injunction, but no relief could have been granted to respondent no.3 in an appeal preferred by the appellant. 8. In my considered opinion, the impugned order discloses an error apparent on the face of law. Therefore, that part of the order dated 19th March, 2009 to the extent it modifies the restraint placed on defendant no.3 by the trial Court, is recalled. The following observations from the impugned order stand deleted : "If the plaintiffs had no right then obviously no order of restraint could be passed against the defendant no.3 from carrying out any mining activity. This issue no longer now survives in view of the stand taken by the Government. Nevertheless the restraint placed on defendant no.3 cannot survive and that part of the order is modified." 9. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. The review application stands allowed in aforesaid terms and is, accordingly, disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA