IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 621 OF 2007 THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY ... Applicant Versus MR. IQBAL MOHIDIN SHAIK ... Respondent Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. S. Mordekar, Addl. Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Mohamod Patel, Advocate with Ms. A. A. Thorat, Advocate for the Respondent original Petitioner. Coram:- P. B. MAJMUDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 1st April, 2009 P.C. By way of this Misc. Civil Application, the applicant-State has prayed that the Order passed by this Court dated 04.02.2008, may be clarified to the extent that it would not come in the way of the State Government in rescinding and/or modifying the Notification dated 02.05.2008 published in the Official Gazette on 08.05.2008. 2. This Court on 04.02.2008, disposed off the Writ Petition no. 621/2007 by holding as under : "The learned State Govt. Advocate on instructions states that the State Govt. proposed to establish the Wakf Board for the State within 3 months. We accept the said statement and in view thereof, nothing survives in the petition. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of while accepting the said statement." 3. It is not in dispute that by the Notification dated 02.05.2008, the Wakf Board has already been established by the State. Learned Advocate General submitted that it may be clarified that, in future, if the State wants to modify and/or rescind the Notification dated 02.05.2008, the State is entitled to act on that basis. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-original Petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the State-applicant has not pointed out the grounds for rescinding and/or modifying the Notification, which is already issued on 02.05.2008. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondent-original Petitioner, that in case of rescinding and modification of the said Notification dated 02.05.2008, the respondent, who is the original Petitioner, should be allowed to challenge the said decision on all available points and in accordance with law. 5. We have heard both the sides and we are of the opinion that, in future, on whatever grounds the State wants to modify/rescind or amend the earlier Notification dated 02.05.2008, the State cannot be prevented in this behalf. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the applicant-State. In view of this, it is clarified that the Order passed by this Court dated 04.02.2008, shall not come in the way of the applicant-State in future in case the State wants to modify/rescind or amend the Notification dated 02.05.2008. If any such modification is made in the Notification dated 02.05.2008, it will be open to the Respondent-original Petitioner, to challenge the same on all available points in accordance with law. We may clarify that Order passed by this Court dated 04.02.2008, shall not come in the way of the State Government in modifying and/or rescinding the Notification dated 02.05.2008. Legality and validity of such Notification, if any, can be challenged by the Respondent, who was the original Petitioner, by taking appropriate action as deemed fit. 6. Subject to the same, this Misc. Civil Application is disposed off. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. arp/*