IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 600 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 519 OF 2007 CARLOS NORONHA AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND 8 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondents No. 2,4,7 & 8. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni and Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. B. Zariwala and Mr. M.S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocates with Ms. S. Kamat, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 1st September, 2008 P.C.: Heard Counsel appearing for parties. Perused the application and the replies filed thereto. 2. The amendment application seeks to incorporate certain events which have transpired after an ad interim order was made on this Writ Petition. The schedule to the amendment enlists the events and the communications, so also, the orders passed subsequent to the date of admission of this Writ Petition. 3. We are satisfied from the perusal of the application that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the amendment application is allowed. The amendment would assist us in completely and effectually resolving the controversy. Further, the same would obviate multiplicity of proceedings. In such circumstances, and keeping all contentions on merits of the amended pleas open, we make this application absolute in terms of para 9(a). However, there will be no order as to costs. Amendment to be carried out within a period of one week and amended petition would be served within a period of one week thereafter. Additional affidavits, if any, to be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter. 4. Respondent no. 5 states that the reply to the amendment application be treated as a reply to the amended petition and they do not wish to file any further replies. Application disposed of. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH