IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 785 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2009 MASCARENHAS TOMAS ANTONIO ... Applicant Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. T. George John, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. E. Dias, Advocate for respondents No.7 and 8. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 8th October, 2009 P.C. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The petitioner in both the petitions, i.e. Writ Petitions No.299/2009 and 300/2009, has moved this civil application, seeking amendment. There is no dispute as regards the date of filing of both the writ petitions i.e. somewhere in April, 2009. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant points out that the applicant applied for the information under the Right to Information Act, received the said documents on 17.9.09 and, thereafter, moved this application on 29.9.2009. 3. On behalf of the State i.e. Respondent No.4, learned Advocate General Shri Kantak points out that the petitioner is filing the writ petitions in this Court which are in the nature of public interest. Thereafter, the applicant, resorting to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, is obtaining the documents and seeking the amendment. He has fairly stated that this Court, by order passed on 8.9.09, had directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Indisputably, the amount has been deposited by the applicant. Further submission of the learned Advocate General Shri Kantak is that deposit of such amount is only towards the bonafides of the applicant. The issue of refund of this amount, either to the applicant or to any other party, has been kept open by this Court. 4. On behalf of respondents No.7 and 8, learned Advocate Shri E. Dias points out that earlier there was some civil litigation and though the applicant herein was not a party to the said litigation, it was set up on his behalf. We have also heard learned Counsel for respondent No.3, who submits that respondent No.3 has nothing to say about this application. 5. We are inclined to allow this civil application, however, subject to the costs of Rs.1,000/- to be paid before the returnable date in the writ petitions. The amount of Rs.1000/- to be deposited with the Registry. As regards the amount of Rs.15,000/-, orders would be passed by this Court at an appropriate stage. Civil Application is allowed and disposed of. Amendment prayed for is permitted. The writ petitions to be amended within two weeks from today. Amended copies to be served to the Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Costs Rs.1000/- to be paid to State. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ssm.