IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2006 Manik Nair ... Petitioner V/s. Union of India & 5 ors. ... Respondent Mr. N.P. Mishra for the petitioner. Mr. M.R. Prajapati a/w Mr. Y.S. Bhate for respondent No. 1. Mr. A.K. Jalisatgo with Mr. Amol B. Desai for respondent No.4. Mr. S.K. Nair, A panel counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, : F.I. REBELLO, : F.I. REBELLO, ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. V. MOHTA,JJ. V. MOHTA,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 05th April, 2006 : 05th April, 2006 : 05th April, 2006 P.C. . Reply has been filed by the respondent No. 4 as directed. Copy of letter dated 29th March, 2006 is annexed to the reply which was communicated to respondent No. 6. The Automative Research Association of India is the expert body dealing with the relevant subject. It is their contention that when the equipment manufactured for respondent No. 6 was checked, various defects were found. On account of these defects the permission cannot be granted for use of equipment solely by respondent No. 6 amongst other. ( 2 ) 2. It is open to the petitioner to approach respondent No. 6 to remove the defects. Respondent No. 6 thereafter can approach respondent No. 4 if defects are removed. Respondent No. 4 to take steps according to law. 3. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of. [F.I. [F.I. [F.I. REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]