IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 405 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2007 SHRI. RAVINDRA JANA ... Applicant Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 6 ORS. ... Respondent Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for respondent No. 1,2,4,5 & 6 Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 6th May, 2009 P.C. Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant and Learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1,2,4, 5 and 6. Nobody has appeared for respondent No.7 private contesting party, as also respondent No.3. Advocate Mr. Dessai has pointed out that the complaint filed by the petitioner-applicant was finally disposed of by respondent No.2 on 28.11.07 and as per that adjudication, respondent No.7 was supposed to demolish his unauthorised construction. The said respondent then filed a review application on 21.12.07 and that review application is still pending. He states that the petitioner-applicant was required to file a contempt petition and in that contempt petition, a statement was made that the complaint filed by the petitioner-applicant before respondent No.2 was disposed of on 28.11.07. He, therefore, states that in such circumstances, the present application itself can be disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to expeditiously decide the review application moved by respondent No.7 in the complaint filed by the present applicant. 2. Learned Government Counsel has contended that as large number of cases are pending before respondent No.2 Authority, it may not be possible to decide the matter immediately. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has approached respondent No.2 way back in 2006 and thereafter, because of contempt proceedings his complaint was disposed of on 28.11.07, we find it proper to direct respondent No.2 to decide the review application filed by respondent No.7 as early as possible and in any case by end of June, 2009. The complaint filed by the petitioner has been disposed of on 28.11.07, but the judgment delivered there could not be given effect because of review application filed by respondent No.7 which is pending since 21.12.07. 3. In such circumstances, by directing respondent No.2 Authority to dispose of the review application filed by respondent No.7 by 30th June, 2009, we allow the present misc. civil application. MCA is, accordingly, disposed of. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ssm.