IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 21 OF 2009 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2007 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PANAJI ... Applicant Versus . ... Respondent Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the applicant. Advocate Ms. Norma Alvares, Amicus Curiae. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 to 6. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for resopndent No.8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 47. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.15. Mr. P. Shahapurkar, Advocate for respondents No.20 to 24. Mr. Amit Palekar, Advocate for respondent No.31. Coram:- SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & R. M. SAVANT, JJ. Date:- 17th December, 2009 P.C. Heard. 2. This application has been preferred by the applicant- Corporation of the City of Panaji (original respondent No.15 in SMWP No.2/07) for review of the Order dated 25.11.2009 in SMWP No.2/07. In the said order, certain observations and directions have been issued in relation to Municipal Councils and the applicant-Corporation. Learned Counsel for the applicant stated that on 25.11.2009, this Court clearly expressed that the case of the Corporation would be considered separately. 3. The above position is not disputed by the learned Counsel for other parties. Ms. Alvares, learned Amicus Curiae, also fairly stated that the case of the Corporation was to be considered separately. In view of the above facts, it is clarified that the directions contained para 6 of that Order would not apply to the applicant-Corporation. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant also submitted that in para 5 of the said order, in relation to waste disposal plant, a statement has been wrongly attributed to the Corporation along with the Municipal Councils. Hence, the statement attributed to the Corporation in para 5 that the Corporation may not require a waste disposal site stands deleted. 5. It is made clear that as far as the issue of deposit of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the same will be decided in SMWP 2/07, on the next date. 6. The application is allowed accordingly and disposed of. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. R. M. SAVANT, J. ssm.