IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 483 OF 2018

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2016

THE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE) AND

EX-OFFICIO ADDL. SECRETARY TO THE

GOVT., PANAJI.,

... Applicant

Versus

SHIVPRASAD S. NAIK.,

... Respondent

Mr. Pravin N. Faldessai, Additional Government Advocate for

the Applicant.

Mr. L. Raghunandan, Advocate for the Respondent.

Coram:- M. S. SONAK &

NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

Date:-

27th February 2019

P.C.:

Heard Mr. Pravin N. Faldessai, learned Additional

Government

Advocate

for

the

applicant

and

Shri

L.

Raghunandan, learned Advocate for the respondent.

2. This application requests us to speak to the minutes of the

judgment and order dated 13/10/2016.

3. The prayer in the application is that the order dated

13/10/2016 be "suitably clarified".

2

MCA/483/2018

4. Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate

submits that in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority is a

Chief Minister and not the Governor. On this basis, he submits

that the remand should have been to the Chief Minister and not

to the Disciplinary Authority appointed by order dated

10/09/2008.

5. On perusal of the judgment and order da