IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 495 OF 2010 SHRI. I. V. KHAWLHRING, CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (CONSERVATION), PANAJI-GOA ... Applicant Versus GOA FOUNDATION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DR. CLAUDE ALVARES ... Respondent Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. N. Alvares, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 8th February, 2011 P.C.: We have heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the applicant and Mrs. Norma Alvares, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. We have perused the application filed by the applicant as well as counter affidavit filed by the respondent/original petitioner. 3. The learned Advocate General has contended that at the time of the hearing of the Writ Petition, he had raised the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition and in support thereof he had relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1997 (7) SCC 440 in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad V/s. Union of India & Ors. and the order dated 18/02/2002, passed in the said petition. He, accordingly, submitted that the grievances raised by the respondent/original petitioner are to be addressed only to the Central Empowered Committee set up by the Apex Court. He pointed out that the said judgment and the order of the Apex Court were not considered and, as such, the order passed by this Court issuing rule is to be recalled. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. N. Alvares, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/original petitioner has disputed the contentions of the applicant and pointed out that the dispute raised in the above petition is different and, as such, the above application is to be rejected. 5. Without going into the correctness of the contentions of the learned Counsel, we find that the fact that the said judgment and order of the Apex Court were sought to be relied upon by the applicant, has not been disputed by the respondent/original petitioner in their counter affidavit. On perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 29/10/2010, we find that the said judgment and order of the Apex Court have not been referred to. Normally, this Court does not recall orders issuing rule. But however in view of the fact that it is contended by the applicant that there are specific directions in the judgment and order of the Apex Court, which have not been referred to, we find that in the interest of justice, in view of the said error, it is appropriate that the order passed by this Court on 29/10/2010 be recalled and the matter be fixed for admission afresh. All the contentions of the respondent/petitioner on the merits of the matter are left open. 6. In view of the above, we recall the order dated 29/10/2010. Fix the Writ Petition for admission on 21/02/2011. A. P. LAVANDE, J. F. M. REIS, J. NH