IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2010 SHRI ANTONIO FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PANAJI AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. G. Xettigar, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 5th August, 2010 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. We have also heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second Respondent as well as learned Senior Counsel for third Respondent. 2. The Appeal preferred by the second Respondent for challenging the Order of demolition being Municipal Appeal no.MIN(UD)/29/09/222, is pending before the State Government. Moreover, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third Respondent pointed out that an application for retention of the structure in dispute has been received from the second Respondent which will be processed by the third Respondent within a period of four weeks from today and, thereafter, the same will have to be forwarded to Conservation Committee. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the structure of the second Respondent is not being demolished notwithstanding the Order of demolition. As the substantive Appeal is pending and as application for retention of the structure is pending, as of today, a writ of mandamus directing the first Respondent to implement the Order of demolition cannot be issued. Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. (ii) The application for retention made by the second Respondent shall be decided expeditiously. (iii) It will be open for the Petitioner to make an application for intervention in the pending Appeal. (iv) If such an application is made, the same shall be decided on its own merits. (v) All contentions on merits of the Appeal are kept open. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*