... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO.174 of 2009 Goa Foundation, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 through its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares, and having its registered office at Room 7, above Mapusa Clinic, Mapusa, Goa. … Petitioner. v e r s u s 1. Margao Municipal Council through Chief Officer, Margao, Goa. 2. State of Goa, though Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 3. Claudio Fernandes, r/o Shangrilla Royal Villa, D-4, Sonsoddo, Raia, Salcete, Goa. … Respondents. Ms. Norma Alvares, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.2. ... 2 ... CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent and in view of orders of this Court dated 27.04.2009 and 05.05.2009. 2. Advocate Mr. Padiyar has filed additional affidavit of the Chief Officer of the respondent no.1, Municipal Council mentioning therein that the removal/reclaiming and screening of dumped composted waste and construction of landfill is to be completed by 31.01.2010. During the arguments, he has also clarified that this item in paragraph 6 (B) of the affidavit deals with the question of disposal of accumulated waste over all these years which forms the subject matter of the present petition. He states that the said work is being entrusted to appropriate agency and that the agency has to complete that work by 31.01.2010. ... 3 ... 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that the annexures filed along with the additional affidavit nowhere expressly show that the work of removal of accumulated waste and the work of reclaiming the said site or construction of landfill has been handed over to any agency. According to the learned counsel, there is nothing before this Court to gather that the statement as made in the affidavit and as explained to this Court has actually been implemented. 4. In view of this argument, we have again heard learned Advocate Mr. Padiyar and he has explained that out of the two agencies, one agency has sought time of one year to complete the work while the other agency has sought eight months' time. He further states that the petitioner has submitted a proposal in which it was expressed that the work could be completed within four months. He therefore, states that after examining these issues, the time schedule has been arrived at and disclosed in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. ... 4 ... 5. In view of the subsequent arguments and the responsible statement made in affidavit, we accept the time schedule as given in paragraph 6 (B). In other words, the respondent no.1 Municipal Council shall complete the work of reclaiming, screening and removal of dumped composted waste and construction of landfill by 31.01.2010. 6. In view of these directions, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i). No order as to costs. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. lh/.