1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.712/09 IN SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2007. AND SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2007. MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.712/09 IN SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2007. Member Secretary, Goa State Legal Services Authority .. Applicant. In -- .. Petitioner Versus State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and 44 Ors. .. Respondents. WITH SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2007. -- .. Petitioner Versus State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and 44 Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Norma Alvares, Amicus Curiae. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1,3to6. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for the respondent No.2. 2 CORAM :- S. B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 07 th October, 2009 . P.C. : 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. This Court, somewhere in the month of January, 2007 appointed learned Amicus Curiae Mrs. Norma Alvares to assist the Court. We, therefore, have heard learned Advocate General for the State. Though there are about 19 respondents in this application, we do not feel it necessary to hear the other respondents in this application. We have perused the earlier orders passed by this Court. In view of our order, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has presented a statement in the Court, which is marked “X” for identification and taken on record. Copies have been served on the learned Advocate General and Amicus Curiae. The statement shows costs received from the order passed by the High Court from 01.04.2008 to 31.08.2009. Statement runs in many pages. This statement bears today's date i.e.07.10.2009. From this statement, it is reflected that an amount of Rs. 2,61,250/- has been received by the applicant 3 Authority. From this statement, further it appears that amounts of Rs.7,888/- and Rs.7,180/- have been paid towards the professional fees to the Advocates engaged by the Authority. We have considered the provisions of Goa State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1996. The Advocate appearing on behalf of the Authority submits that this petition has been filed on account of failure and or default on the part of the panchayats concerned, who are party respondents. According to him, if some costs to be imposed, the said cost needs to be imposed on the said panchayats. He also points out that an amount of Rs.25,000/- each was directed by this Court to be deposited in this Court by these panchayats, who are respondents in this Suo Moto writ petition. From the record, we may note that the order passed on 03/08/2009, more specifically para 7, directed the Registry to invest an amount received from these Panchayats i.e. Rs.25,000/- each with nationalised bank initially for the period of three years and in the absence of further order from this Court, the said investment is directed to be reinvested for further period of three years. In our view, the order by which we have directed an amount of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the present applicant, 4 need not be varied, modified, and or recalled. This payment of Rs.50,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae shall be made by the Authority till 14.10.2009. Since the investment, which we have directed initially for a period of three years and considering status and source of funds with the present applicant, in our view, interest accrued on this amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited by the Panchayats initially in this Court in terms of investment made by the Registry, needs to be paid to the Authority initially after the period of completion of three years from the said investment. Such payment after completion of three years to be made by the Registry to Goa State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month. 3. This application, in view of this order, stands disposed of. S. B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. SMA