IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 651 OF 2009 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 5 OF 2008 STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY ... Applicant Versus CHARLES D'SOUZA ... Respondent Mr. Abhijeet Kamat, Addl. Government Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N. Vaze, Advocate holding for Mr. M. S. Sonak, Amicus Curiae for the Respondent. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 31st August, 2009 P.C. We have heard Addl. Government Advocate for the applicant and learned Counsel holding for Mr. M. S. Sonak, Amicus Curiae, for the respondent. 2. We have seen earlier Order passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application no. 172/2009 in PIL Writ Petition No. 5/2008 dated 17.02.2009. By that Order, this Court had granted six months extension of time till today i.e. 31.08.2009 for setting up Human Rights Commission in accordance with the provisions of law. It is submitted in the present application for extension of time, in paragraph 7, that despite the best efforts of the State Government, the State has been unable to obtain the details of the retired Chief Justices who could be appointed as Chairman of the Commission. Civil Application is verified by one Sidhivinayak Naik, Under Secretary (Home), State of Goa. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Vaze, holding for Advocate Shri Sonak, Amicus Curiae, appearing for the respondent submits that he is in touch with the respondent and seeks sometime to file reply. From the earlier Order passed by this Court, it appears that the difficulties have been conveyed by the Government Advocate to this Court in appointment of the Human Rights Commission, we have considered the difficulties and six months time was granted which expires today. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, there is no point in adjourning this Misc. Civil Application for receiving the reply on behalf of the respondent, who at the time of filing of the Public Interest Litigation, was taking education in Law Faculty. Issue pertains to the appointment of former Chief Justice of the High Court as Chairman of the Human Rights Commission. In our view, four months time can be considered by way of extension with further liberty in favour of the applicant/State during this period to make such appointment of eligible person. 5. Four months time for appointment of such eligible person and/or appointment of Human Rights Commission is granted. We make it clear that during this period of four months, State is at liberty to make such an appointment of eligible person. 6. Civil Application is partly allowed and disposed off. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. arp/*