IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 93 OF 2011 ROBERTO DE MENDONCA AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Raunaq Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. Kakodkar, Additional Govt. Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. Mr. R. Pai with Mr. A Pai and Mr. S. Taleigaonkar, Advocates for Respondent No. 5. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 24th March, 2011 P.C.: In this petition the only ground that is stated to be a distinctive fact from Writ Petition No. 92/2011 is that in this case the Petitioner was not a party to the review application. However, it is admitted that the Petitioner was party to the earlier proceedings. The Petitioner while asserting the title, at the same time seeks same writ of mandamus as in earlier petition for making payment in terms of the Award. For the reasons stated in Writ Petition No. 92/2011 we decline to entertain this writ petition as well with liberty that has been granted therein on identical lines. We dispose of this writ petition also, keeping all contentions of the parties open. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. EV