IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 487 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 257 OF 2005 Subhash Chandra Gupta .. Petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.S. Pakale with Mr.S.C. Dubey for the Respondents in support of the motion. Mr.D.V. Gangal for the Petitioners. CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Pakale in support of this motion which seeks extension of time to complete the enquiry against the original petitioner. We had directed the enquiry to be completed by the end of August 2005, failing which the enquiry was to be deemed to be quashed. That order was passed on 9th March 2005. The present application, which seeks extension, is a kind of application for modification / review of the earlier order. The reason given is that the original petitioner made allegations of bias against the Enquiry Officer and - 2 - in view thereof, the decision on that complaint had to be taken by an appropriate authority. 2. Mr.Gangal, learned counsel for the original petitioner, submits that the order is a self-operative order and at the end of that period, the enquiry should be deemed to have been quashed. He states that he has taken out a contempt petition and has also filed a substantive writ petition. It will be for the concerned courts to look into those proceedings. As far as the present motion is concerned, in our view, the motion is fully justified in the circumstances and the reasons that have been given. We asked Mr.Pakale as to how many witnesses are to be examined. He stated that in all three witnesses are remaining to be examined, and Mr.Gangal stated that the original petitioner will have five witnesses. We are also told that in the earlier enquiry, the depositions are already recorded. It will be open to the parties to refer to and rely upon those depositions in case they decide not to examine anybody personally. In either case, in our view, six months should suffice to complete the enquiry. Accordingly, we grant this motion and extend the time to complete the enquiry till the end of May 2006. 3. Needless to state that the original petitioner - 3 - will cooperate in the earlier disposal of the enquiry. It will be open to the Enquiry Officer to pass an exparte order if the original petitioner refuses to cooperate. We make it clear that the last part of the earlier order, namely that if the enquiry is not completed within the stipulated time it will be deemed to have been quashed, will remain operative but after six months. Motion allowed in these terms. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)