IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 929 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 732 OF 2008 SHRI. ARMANDO PEREIRA THROUGH ATTORNEY GAURISH PEREIRA ... Applicant Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak and Mr. M. G. S. Khandeparkar, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 4. Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. G. R. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 17th December, 2008 P.C.:- Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant so also the learned Counsel for the Respondents/Non Applicants. This application for speaking to the minutes, has been moved with a view to point out an omission in the Order dated 10-12-2008. The omission according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is in regard to a statement made by learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 that the fifth Respondent would not carry out the construction unless and until he has a valid/renewed license to construct. It does appear from the contents of the Order dated 10-12-2008 that such a statement was made. In all fairness, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 makes a statement that Respondent No.5 will not carry out the construction in the absence of a valid/renewed license to construct. In this view of the matter the application stands disposed of. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.