MC 48/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Mr M Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Reserve Bank of India seeks a clarification /review of the order dated 22-3-2007. He says that the following sentence appear ing in second paragraph of the order does not reflect the correct position. The sentence reads as follows :- Further, on submission of Mr Borpujari, this court by the order dated 3-6-2006 called upon the RBI to nominate a member to the Board and also to consider issua nce of banking licence to the newly constituted Union Co-operative Bank. It is submitted that in the order dated 3-3-2006 what is recorded in the second paragraph of the order is as follows :- Mr Borpujari further pointed out that the matter is now pending with the Reserv e Bank of India for nomination of a Member to the Board and for issuance of lice nce. It is submitted that no direction was given to the RBI on 3-3-2006 to nominate a Member to the Board. We find that this submission of learned counsel is correct. What was in fact rec orded in the order dated 3-3-2006 was only the submission of Mr Borpujari and no t a direcetion. The second paragraph of the order dated 22-3-2007 stands clarified as above. Misc Case stands disposed of.